US PTAB IP Litigation

The PTAB held that most of Guardant Health’s ’822 patent claims are obvious over prior‑art sequencing methods, cancelling claims 1‑11, 13, and 17‑20, while claim 12 remains patentable.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

Tempus AI seeks to invalidate all 30 claims of Guardant Health’s DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing they are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and NEB Expressions. The petition asserts no claim construction is needed and that discretionary denial is inappropriate.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

patent all challenged claims upheld · Aug 15, 2025

Tempus AI petitions to invalidate Guardant Health’s ’699 patent, asserting that all 27 claims are obvious over Kinde and Miner. The petition emphasizes claim constructions that broaden the scope to circulating cellular DNA and argues discretionary denial is improper.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

The PTAB affirmed Guardant Health's U.S. Patent 11,149,306 covering cell‑free DNA tagging and counting, finding none of the 29 challenged claims unpatentable after Tempus AI's IPR challenge.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

Tempus AI has petitioned the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 10,689,699 patent covering molecular‑tagging methods for DNA sequencing, arguing the claims are obvious over Kinde, Miner, and Fan. The petition seeks institution of the IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑27.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

patent all challenged claims upheld · Aug 15, 2025

Guardant Health files an IPR petition seeking to invalidate multiple claims of Foundation Medicine’s ’830 cancer‑sequencing patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art methods for targeted enrichment and NGS analysis.

Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 15, 2025

The PTAB affirmed all nine claims of Force MOS Technology’s ’634 patent after finding Inergy Technology’s IPR unsubstantiated. The Board held that the petitioner failed to prove anticipation or obviousness over Hirler, Shiraishi, and Kobayashi references.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

patent denied · Aug 15, 2025

Guardant Health settled its digital sequencing patent dispute with Foundation Medicine for $25 million plus royalties, granting a non‑exclusive license and dismissing all related litigation.

Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.

patent instituted · Aug 15, 2025

Force MOS Technology opposes Excelliance's request for Director Review of a discretionary denial to institute an IPR on its MOSFET patent (U.S. 7,629,634). The Board is urged to uphold the Director's final, non‑appealable decision.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

The PTAB instituted an inter partes review of Guardant Health’s cfDNA sequencing patent after Foundation Medicine (Petitioner) showed a reasonable likelihood of success on an obviousness ground over several prior‑art references.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

TwinStrand Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 11,149,306 patent covering cfDNA sequencing methods, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Narayan and Schmitt. The petition also alleges examiner misdirection by Guardant. The case is pending institution.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Guardant Health’s U.S. Patent 10,287,631 covering duplex consensus sequencing, arguing that all 23 claims are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and Travers publications.

Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.

patent terminated or settled · Aug 15, 2025

Excelliance Mos Corp. seeks Director Review of a Board’s discretionary denial of institution for its IPR against Force MOS Technology’s trench‑MOSFET patent, arguing the denial ignored material prior art and violated statutory rights.

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01335

Meta Platforms' IPR against Dialect was resolved through a settlement between Dialect and Microsoft, leading the district court to grant a stay of all deadlines. The stay provides a 29‑day window to finalize the settlement and file dismissal papers.

patent denied · Aug 15, 2025

Excelliance Mos Corporation v.Force MOS Technology Co., Ltd.

The USPTO Director denied Excelliance Mos Corporation’s request for Director Review of the decision that denied institution of IPR2025‑01433 covering patent 7,629,634. The denial leaves the original institution denial in place.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

Tempus AI has filed an IPR petition challenging Guardant Health’s ’306 patent covering cfDNA sequencing methods. The challenger asserts that all claim elements were disclosed in earlier publications such as Bielas and Vogelstein, rendering the claims obvious. The petition seeks institution of review to invalidate the patent.

Mundra Solar PV Limited v.First Solar, Inc.

· IPR2025-01411

Mundra Solar PV Limited has filed an IPR petition challenging all nine claims of First Solar’s 9,666,732 patent, alleging obviousness over Yablonovitch, Kwark, and Batra. The petition seeks institution of the review.

Meta Platforms, Inc. v.Dialect, LLC

· IPR2025-01336

Meta Platforms has filed a petition for inter partes review of Dialect’s ’825 patent covering speech‑recognition methods, asserting that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references.