Executive Summary
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.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Tempus AI, Inc. vs Guardant Health Inc. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
American Airlines, Inc. et al.vsIntellectual Ventures I LLC
American Airlines and Southwest Airlines have filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 14 claims of Intellectual Ventures’ load‑balancing patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over three prior‑art references.
Google LLCvsSecure Communication Technologies, LLC
The PTAB denied institution for Google LLC's IPR against Secure Communication Technologies regarding patent 11995685. The Board found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate a reasonable likelihood of prevailing on any challenged claims.
NormShield Inc. (d/b/a Black Kite Inc.)vsBitSight Technologies, Inc.
NormShield and BitSight have jointly moved to terminate IPR2024-01394 over patent 9,438,615, citing a settlement and the early stage of the proceeding.
Apple Inc.vsTelcom Ventures LLC
Apple filed a motion to dismiss its IPR petition against Telcom Ventures' 9,462,411 patent, citing good cause and the early stage of the proceeding. The Board has not yet ruled on institution.
Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al.vsMaxell, Ltd.
Samsung has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 16 claims of Maxell’s U.S. 12,160,681 patent covering a wireless video‑transmitter system. The petition relies on five grounds of anticipation and obviousness using four prior‑art references.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.