Short 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.
Detailed Summary
In a January 2022 press release, Guardant Health announced a settlement with Foundation Medicine that resolves all pending litigation over Guardant’s digital sequencing technology patents. Under the agreement, Foundation Medicine will pay $25 million and future royalties, while Guardant grants a non‑exclusive license to a defined subset of its patents. The settlement is presented as validation of Guardant’s scientific discoveries and its strong intellectual property portfolio, and it results in the dismissal of all related lawsuits, including the IPR filed by Tempus AI.
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
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd. et al.vs138 East LCD Advancements Limited et al.
BOE Technology Group has filed a petition to invalidate all twelve claims of U.S. Patent 8,319,512, asserting that the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art LCD driver references. Six obviousness grounds are presented, each tying specific claim groups to the teachings of Saito, Her, Taguchi, and Kim.
ClearCorrect Operating, LLC et al.vsAlign Technology, Inc.
The USPTO denied ClearCorrect’s request for Director Review of the institution decisions in five IPRs involving Align Technology’s patents, leaving the institution outcomes intact.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsWilus Institute of Standards and Technology Inc.
Samsung successfully secured the institution of IPR against Wilus Institute's patent 11,129,163 by demonstrating a reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on prior art (Lee). The trial will proceed on all 16 challenged claims.
Shenzhen Tuozhu Technology Co., Ltd. et al.vsStratasys, Inc. et al.
The PTAB granted institution of IPR for Stratasys's 3D printing patent (9168698) after finding a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would prevail over Warren. The trial will address obviousness claims based on various prior art references.
C.R. Bard, Inc. et al.vsMedline Industries, LP
C.R. Bard has filed an IPR petition seeking to invalidate Medline’s 11,661,220 catheter‑kit patent, asserting that all challenged claims are obvious over multiple 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.