Short Summary
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.
Detailed Summary
In this petition, Tempus AI challenges Guardant Health’s U.S. Patent No. 10,689,699, which claims methods for error‑corrected DNA sequencing using duplex consensus sequencing. Tempus contends that the claims are unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. §103 because the prior‑art references Kinde (2011) and Miner (2004) disclose the same workflow and tagging methods, especially when applied to circulating cellular DNA—a construction now affirmed by the patent owner in a district‑court brief. The petition argues that earlier IPRs were denied without addressing these merits and that discretionary denial under §325(d) is inappropriate, seeking institution of review for all 27 claims.
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
Anker Innovations LimitedvsPowermat Technologies Ltd.
Anker Innovations Limited successfully secured institution of its IPR against Powermat Technologies Ltd.'s patent (9048696) based on obviousness grounds. The Board found that the combination of prior art references, specifically Onishi and Flowerdew, provided a reasonable likelihood of prevailing for key claims in Inductive Power Transfer technology.
Kahoot! AS et al.vsinterstellar inc.
Kahoot! has filed a Request for Director Review challenging the PTAB’s denial of institution for its IPR against Interstellar’s ’825 patent, arguing the six‑year settled‑expectations rule was misapplied.
LG Electronics Inc. et al.vsMaxell, LTD.
LG Electronics and Maxell have settled their dispute over U.S. Patent 9,818,449 and jointly moved to terminate the inter partes review. The Board is asked to end the proceeding under 35 U.S.C. § 317(a).
Google LLCvsSandpiper CDN, LLC
Google has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 19 claims of Sandpiper's 8,719,886 patent covering video‑stream delivery and targeted advertising. The petition argues the claims are obvious over a combination of prior‑art references (Acharya, Carle, Schein, Fransdonk) and cites favorable institution factors.
Kahoot! AS et al.vsinterstellar inc.
Kahoot! has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of 14 claims of Interstellar’s ’825 patent, arguing that the claims are obvious over multiple prior‑art references and that discretionary denial under the Fintiv factors is inappropriate.
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.