Key Takeaways

• Chinese biotechnology company Novogene filed a federal lawsuit against the Pentagon in Washington, D.C., on November 3.
• The Pentagon claims Novogene has indirect ownership or affiliations involving Chinese government and military entities, allegations the company denies.
• A recent federal appeals ruling could strengthen challenges to the government's procedures for identifying Chinese military-linked companies.

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Chinese biotechnology company Novogene has taken the U.S. Department of Defense to federal court, escalating a dispute that began when the Pentagon publicly identified the genetic sequencing company as having ties to China's military establishment.

The lawsuit, Novogene Co., Ltd. et al. v. United States Department of Defense et al., Case No. 1:26-cv-03880, was filed November 3, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia. federal court docket.

On June 8, the Pentagon added Novogene to its Section 1260H list of Chinese military companies, a federal designation identifying companies the government believes meet statutory criteria involving China's military-industrial establishment.

The Pentagon's published justification makes two specific assertions. First, it claims Novogene is indirectly owned by China's State-Owned Assets Supervision and Administration Commission (SASAC). Second, it alleges indirect affiliations with China's Ministry of Industry and Information Technology and the People's Liberation Army.

Novogene disputes both allegations.

In a June 19 public statement, the company described the designation as factually incorrect, insisting it has no state ownership, government control, or military affiliation.

Novogene also announced that it had initiated the administrative process to obtain removal from the list.

The distinction matters. A government designation is not a judicial finding that a company engaged in espionage, transferred genetic information to the Chinese military, or violated American law. Nor does Novogene's denial establish that the Pentagon's underlying intelligence assessment is wrong.

There is another dimension to this dispute that deserves attention.

Novogene operates in an industry handling some of the most scientifically valuable—and potentially sensitive—information in modern medicine: genetic sequencing data.

According to its U.S. corporate website, the company established its first American sequencing center in Sacramento, California, in 2016, and maintains laboratory operations in Sacramento and Beaverton, Oregon.

Its customers include universities, hospitals, pharmaceutical companies, and research institutions.

That commercial footprint makes the Pentagon's designation consequential far beyond Washington. Federal contracting restrictions, research funding rules, and institutional risk assessments can influence whether American organizations continue working with listed companies.

But the existence of genomic research operations does not establish improper data transfers. The publicly reviewed designation does not demonstrate that Novogene shared American patients' genetic information with China's military.

The legal question may prove equally important.

On August 18, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit issued a significant decision in Hesai Technology Co., Ltd. v. Department of Defense.

The appeals court determined that the Pentagon violated Hesai's Fifth Amendment due-process rights when it designated the company without first providing adequate notice of the unclassified evidence and a meaningful opportunity to respond.

The court reversed the lower court's judgment and remanded the dispute for further proceedings.

That ruling did not determine whether Hesai had military ties. Instead, it established that national-security designations carrying serious legal and reputational consequences must comply with constitutional procedural protections.

For Novogene, the decision provides an important precedent should it raise comparable due-process issues.

Another biotechnology company, WuXi AppTec, has also challenged its inclusion on the Pentagon's Chinese military companies list, demonstrating that the controversy extends beyond a single corporation.

The central issue is no longer simply whether Washington considers certain Chinese biotechnology firms security risks. It is whether the Pentagon can support those determinations with legally sufficient evidence and procedures capable of surviving judicial scrutiny.

About the Author

Samuel López is an investigative journalist and legal analyst for USA Herald, covering federal litigation, national security, insurance, and emerging technologies. With more than two decades of experience in the legal profession, López examines complex disputes through court records, statutory authority, and the evidence supporting competing claims.

Stay Informed Beyond the Headlines

The biggest stories often begin with a court filing, a government document, or a detail others overlook. Get USA Herald's investigative reporting, legal analysis, and national-security coverage by subscribing through the USA Herald website.

Follow USA Herald on X: @RealUSAHerald