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.

patent all challenged claims upheld · Aug 15, 2025

Tempus AI challenges Guardant Health’s 10,287,631 sequencing patent, arguing all 23 claims are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and Travers publications, and that no FINTIV issues exist.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

The PTAB affirmed Guardant Health’s patent on cfDNA tagging methods, finding none of the 29 challenged claims unpatentable after rejecting Tempus AI’s obviousness arguments.

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.

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.

patent all challenged claims upheld · Aug 15, 2025

Guardant Health petitions the PTAB to invalidate Foundation Medicine’s 9,340,830 cancer‑diagnostic patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over prior‑art methods for targeted enrichment and next‑generation sequencing.

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.

Tempus AI petitions the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 10,689,699 patent covering duplex consensus sequencing, arguing obviousness over Kinde and Miner and citing a new claim‑construction that broadens the scope to cellular DNA.

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.

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.

Tempus AI seeks to invalidate Guardant Health’s 30‑claim DNA‑sequencing patent, arguing the claims are obvious over Kinde, Craig, and NEB Expressions. The petition requests institution of the IPR.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

TwinStrand Biosciences petitions the PTAB to invalidate Guardant Health’s 29‑claim ‘306 patent on the basis that the claims are obvious over prior art such as Narayan and Schmitt, and that Guardant misled the examiner. The petition seeks cancellation of all claims.

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.

Guardant Health’s ’699 patent on duplex consensus sequencing is challenged by Tempus AI, which alleges the claims are obvious over earlier academic publications. The petition seeks institution of an IPR and cancellation of claims 1‑27.

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.

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

· IPR2025-01336

Meta Platforms and Dialect's IPR dispute was resolved through a settlement with Microsoft, leading the district court to grant a 29‑day stay of all deadlines to allow dismissal filings.

Tempus AI, Inc. v.Guardant Health Inc.

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

patent denied · Aug 15, 2025

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.

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