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
Canadian Solar Inc. et al.vsMaxeon Solar Pte. Ltd.
The PTAB issued a Final Written Decision finding claims 9-20 of the patent unpatentable based on obviousness (35 U.S.C. § 103). The Board found that substituting known elements, such as polysilicon emitters for diffused emitters, was predictable and rendered the claimed technology obvious over combinations of prior art references like Gan and Froitzheim.
Apple Inc.vsApex Beam Technologies LLC
Apple successfully secured the institution of Inter Partes Review against Apex Beam's patent 10,462,767, challenging all 20 claims based on obviousness over prior art standards like Yeo and TS36.
BOE Technology Group Co., Ltd.vsSamsung Display Co., Ltd.
BOE and Samsung jointly filed a request to keep their IPR settlement agreement confidential and separate from the patent record.
Fifth Third Bank, National AssociationvsUnited Services Automobile Association
Fifth Third Bank has filed a petition to institute an IPR against US Patent 12,211,095 covering mobile check‑deposit technology. The petition alleges that all 30 claims are obvious over a combination of earlier mobile imaging references. It seeks cancellation of the entire patent.
Univacco Technology Inc.vsLEONHARD KURZ Stiftung & Co., KG
The PTAB denied institution for PGR2026-00011, finding that the petitioner failed to meet the required standard of likelihood of prevailing or unpatentability.
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.