Untitled case

Case Overview and Background for IPR2022-00817

This case involves an Inter Partes Review (IPR) before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,760,127. The patent, titled "Methods of lowering the error rate of massively parallel DNA sequencing using duplex consensus sequencing," describes an approach to significantly reduce errors in DNA sequencing by independently tagging and sequencing both strands of a DNA duplex. This method, known as Duplex Consensus Sequencing (DCS), leverages the complementary nature of the two strands to distinguish true mutations from PCR or sequencing errors, which would only appear on one strand. The inventors listed on the patent are Salk et al..

As of the current date, the specific petitioner and patent owner in IPR2022-00817 have not been identified through public records. Consequently, the exact nature of these parties (e.g., operating company, Non-Practicing Entity/Patent Assertion Entity, or university) and any specific accused products, services, or technologies that might be the subject of underlying patent infringement litigation are not publicly available in the provided information.

This IPR case is notable because it has reached a Final Written Decision by the PTAB, indicating a full review of the patentability of the challenged claims. The PTAB's decisions in IPRs can have significant implications for related district court litigation, often leading to estoppel for grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised during the IPR. While a direct link to specific district court litigation is not yet established for IPR2022-00817, IPR outcomes frequently influence the trajectory and viability of parallel infringement suits. The field of massively parallel DNA sequencing is a critical and rapidly evolving area in biotechnology and medical research, making the validity of foundational patents like the '127 patent highly impactful for the industry.

The patent infringement litigation concerning U.S. Patent No. 10,760,127, primarily involving TwinStrand Biosciences, Inc., the University of Washington (as plaintiffs), and Guardant Health, Inc. (as defendant), has seen significant developments in both district court and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

I. District Court Litigation: TwinStrand Biosciences Inc. v. Guardant Health Inc. (D. Del., Case No. 1-21-cv-01126)

• Filing & Initial Pleadings (August 2021 - October 2021): TwinStrand Biosciences and the University of Washington initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Guardant Health in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware in August 2021. The complaint alleged infringement of several patents, including U.S. Patent No. 10,760,127, related to methods for lowering the error rate of massively parallel DNA sequencing using duplex consensus sequencing. Guardant Health filed its answer in October 2021, denying infringement and asserting counterclaims of patent invalidity and unenforceability, along with infringement of its own patents.
• Pre-trial Motions (October 2023): The District Court dismissed with prejudice TwinStrand's infringement claims related to U.S. Patent Nos. 10,689,699 and 10,752,951 in October 2023, narrowing the scope of the asserted patents.
• Discovery Milestones: Discovery in the case concluded by late 2023.
• Trial Events & Verdict (November 14, 2023): A jury trial was held, resulting in a verdict on November 14, 2023, in favor of TwinStrand Biosciences and the University of Washington. The jury found that Guardant Health willfully infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 10,287,631 and 10,760,127. The jury awarded $83.4 million in damages to the plaintiffs, calculated as a 6% royalty on past infringing sales.
• Post-Trial Motions & Judgment (March 4, 2024 - June 16, 2026):
  • On March 4, 2024, post-trial motions were filed. Guardant Health moved to overturn the jury's verdict, seek a new trial, or amend the judgment. TwinStrand Biosciences sought enhanced damages due to the willful infringement finding, pre- and post-judgment interest, and a go-forward running royalty.
  • On June 16, 2026, the District Court for the District of Delaware denied Guardant Health's motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial. The court granted TwinStrand's request for ongoing royalties at a 6% rate and supplemental damages for infringing sales made between July 1, 2023, and February 5, 2024. However, TwinStrand's motion for enhanced damages was denied, as the court determined Guardant's conduct did not warrant such an enhancement.

II. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (IPR2022-00817)

• IPR Petition Filing (2022): In response to the infringement lawsuit, Guardant Health, Inc. filed at least two Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 10,760,127. IPR2022-00817 was one of these petitions, naming the University of Washington as the patent owner. Guardant Health argued that claims 1-30 of the patent were unpatentable as obvious over prior art references.
• PTAB Final Written Decision (Early October 2023): The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a Final Written Decision in early October 2023 (reported October 11, 2023) in IPR2022-00817. The PTAB ruled in favor of the University of Washington, finding that Guardant Health failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that the challenged claims (claims 1-30) of U.S. Patent No. 10,760,127 were unpatentable. The Board concluded that Guardant had not met its burden to show that a skilled person would have combined the asserted prior art to arrive at the patented method.
• Appeal to Federal Circuit & Remand (January 23, 2026): Guardant Health appealed the PTAB's Final Written Decision to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit (CAFC). On January 23, 2026, the Federal Circuit vacated and remanded the PTAB's decision in IPR2022-00817. The CAFC held that the PTAB erred by requiring Guardant to show a motivation to combine steps that were already disclosed in sequence within a single prior art reference. The Federal Circuit also found error in the PTAB's requirement for a reasonable expectation of success when the obviousness argument relied on a single embodiment from a single reference. The case was sent back to the PTAB for reconsideration under the corrected legal framework.

III. Final Disposition/Present Posture (June 19, 2026):

The district court litigation has progressed to post-trial motions, with Guardant's motions for JMOL/new trial being denied and TwinStrand being awarded ongoing royalties and supplemental damages, though enhanced damages were denied. Guardant Health has indicated its intention to appeal the district court's verdict and judgment to the Federal Circuit. Concurrently, the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2022-00817 was vacated and remanded by the Federal Circuit in January 2026, meaning the patentability of claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 10,760,127 is still under review at the PTAB.

I'll verify the parties and counsel before answering, since the prior sections contain an internal contradiction (one says Guardant Health filed IPR2022-00817, the other says Natera, Inc.).

Confirmed: the petitioner is Guardant Health, not Natera — the prior "Defendant representatives" section is contradicted by the record. Now let me find the parallel district court plaintiffs' counsel and verify IPR counsel of record.

Let me verify the Delaware docket counsel entries and check whether any additional firms appear for the plaintiffs.

Preliminary: the "plaintiff" framing doesn't map onto this docket

Two threshold clarifications before naming anyone.

1. This is an IPR, not an infringement case. IPR2022-00817 is Guardant Health, Inc. v. University of Washington through its Center for Commercialization, an inter partes review of U.S. Pat. No. 10,760,127 at the PTAB. There is no plaintiff or defendant — the parties are Petitioner (Guardant Health) and Patent Owner (University of Washington). The party occupying the "plaintiff/claimant" posture is therefore the Petitioner, Guardant Health. I answer for both that party and for the plaintiffs in the parallel infringement action.

2. Contradiction flag — the prior "Defendant representatives" section is wrong on the petitioner. That section names Natera, Inc. as the petitioner and lists four Seed IP Law Group attorneys as counsel for the University of Washington. Neither is supported by the record. Multiple independent sources — the Final Written Decision caption (IPR2022-00817, Paper 47, Oct. 10, 2023), the Board's LEAP order, and Law360's Oct. 11, 2023 coverage — all identify Guardant Health, Inc. as petitioner and Sterne Kessler Goldstein & Fox as the University of Washington's counsel. I could find no source linking Natera or Seed IP to this proceeding. That earlier section should be treated as unreliable.

---

A. Counsel for the Petitioner (Guardant Health, Inc.) — the party in the plaintiff-side posture in IPR2022-00817

Per the Board's records and contemporaneous press coverage, Guardant was represented by Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati:

Caveat on lead designation: the Board's public filings in this docket list Rosato, Mills, Gerrard, and Medley collectively; I could not independently verify from a primary source which of them held the formal "lead counsel" designation on the Power of Attorney, so the "lead" attribution for Rosato rests on Law360's reporting rather than the POA document itself.

On appeal (Fed. Cir. 2024-1129, Guardant Health, Inc. v. University of Washington, decided Jan. 23, 2026): Guardant was represented by Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP — Joshua Rosenkranz (New York; argued), Samantha Michelle Leff and Travis Jensen (Menlo Park), Raghav Krishnapriyan and Elizabeth Moulton (San Francisco) — alongside Wilson Sonsini's Sonja R. Gerrard, Jad A. Mills, Michael T. Rosato (Seattle) and Richard Torczon (Washington, DC). This is drawn directly from the opinion's counsel block (Case 24-1129, Doc. 63).

---

B. Counsel for the Plaintiffs in the parallel infringement action — TwinStrand Biosciences, Inc. & University of Washington v. Guardant Health, Inc., No. 1-21-cv-01126-GBW-SRF (D. Del.)

If the intent is the plaintiffs in the underlying infringement case (the two entities that won the Nov. 14, 2023 jury verdict and the Aug. 21, 2026 final judgment), the counsel of record are:

Lead trial counsel — Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. (Washington, DC):

Delaware local counsel — Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor LLP (Wilmington, DE):

Not established: I found no public record identifying TwinStrand's in-house counsel or any additional plaintiffs'-side firm of record. If any part of Plaintiffs' trial or post-trial briefing was filed under seal, counsel appearing only in sealed papers would not be captured here.

---

C. For completeness — Patent Owner's counsel in IPR2022-00817 itself

The University of Washington (the party defending the '127 patent, i.e., the "defendant-side" party in the IPR) was represented by Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C., 1100 New York Avenue NW, Washington, DC (with a Boston office involved in related depositions):

• Ralph Wilson Powers III, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 63,504) — lead counsel
• David H. Holman, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 61,205) — back-up; LEAP oral-hearing participant
• Kristina C. Kelly (Reg. No. 58,154) — back-up
• Christopher M. Gallo, Ph.D. (Reg. No. 70,291) — back-up
• Byron L. Pickard (Reg. No. 65,172) — back-up
• Tyler Liu (Reg. No. 72,126) — back-up

On appeal, UW was represented by Sterne Kessler's William Milliken (who argued) with Richard C. Rudo, David H. Holman, Byron Leroy Pickard, and Ralph Wilson Powers III.

---

Sources and confidence

• PTAB Final Written Decision, IPR2022-00817, Paper 47 (Oct. 10, 2023); Decision Granting Institution, Paper 14 (Oct. 13, 2022); LEAP order and hearing correspondence (June 2023) — docketalarm.com and ptacts.uspto.gov.
• Law360, "DNA Sequencing Patent Survives Guardant PTAB Challenge" (Oct. 11, 2023), reproduced by Sterne Kessler — identifies both parties' IPR counsel by name.
• Fed. Cir. No. 2024-1129, slip op. (Jan. 23, 2026), counsel block — for the appeal teams.
• Sterne Kessler firm announcement (Dec. 2023) and Law360 trial coverage, "Seattle Startup Wins $83M In IP Spat..." — for the district court trial team, Young Conaway local counsel, and Guardant's DLA Piper team.
• VitalLaw/Bloomberg, "Patent—D. Del.: Court lets stand $83.4 million jury verdict" (June 23, 2026) — for Poff and DLA Piper's Erin E. Larson on the post-trial ruling.
• TwinStrand press release / Reuters (Aug. 24, 2026) — final judgment context; does not list counsel.

Confidence: High on Guardant/Wilson Sonsini as petitioner and Sterne Kessler as UW's counsel. High on the Sterne Kessler and Young Conaway plaintiffs' teams in Delaware. Moderate on individual role labels (lead vs. back-up vs. associate) in the district court matter, since those are drawn from firm announcements and signature blocks rather than a consolidated PACER attorney list, which I could not retrieve directly.

I'll research the counsel representing the defendant(s) in the underlying infringement litigation. Note the framing issue: this docket is an IPR, but the related patent infringement case is TwinStrand Biosciences, Inc. v. Guardant Health, Inc. (D. Del. 1-21-cv-01126), where Guardant Health is the defendant. Let me research the defense counsel.

I have strong data on the defense side. Let me confirm a few points — the Weil, Gotshal appearance, the lead trial counsel designation, and Guardant's IPR petitioner counsel.

Counsel of Record for the Defendant — TwinStrand Biosciences, Inc. & University of Washington v. Guardant Health, Inc. (D. Del. No. 1:21-cv-01126-GBW-SRF)

Framing note (carried forward). The docket in the case metadata is IPR2022-00817, an inter partes review before the PTAB, which has no "defendant." The related patent-infringement action — and the only case in this dispute with a defendant — is the Delaware suit captioned above, in which Guardant Health, Inc. is the sole defendant. The IPR and the appeal of the IPR are the same party alignment (Guardant as petitioner/appellant). Accordingly, the "defense counsel" entries below are Guardant's counsel of record in the Delaware infringement action, with a short note on Guardant's PTAB-side and in-house representation. This builds on the prior "Plaintiff representatives" section (which covered TwinStrand/UW's Sterne Kessler + Young Conaway team).

Lead trial / merits counsel

• DLA Piper LLP (US) is Guardant's principal defense firm. It has appeared continuously from the 2021 answer through the 2026 post-trial and final-judgment phase.
  • Mark D. Fowler — DLA Piper LLP (US), East Palo Alto, CA (2000 University Avenue). Named among Guardant's lead counsel in the parties' April–May 2022 meet-and-confer statement (D.I. 69). Note: the meet-and-confer text identifying "Lead Counsel for Guardant" was truncated in the retrieved copy, so I flag Fowler as lead/primary based on his position on every Guardant service list rather than on a fully legible docket line.
  • Susan Krumplitsch — DLA Piper, East Palo Alto, CA (life-sciences/patent litigator on the Guardant team).
  • Monica De Lazzari — DLA Piper, East Palo Alto, CA.
  • Ellen Scordino — DLA Piper, Boston, MA (33 Arch Street, 26th Floor).
  • Kristin (M.) Beale — DLA Piper, Boston, MA.
  • Michael A. Sitzman — DLA Piper, San Francisco, CA (555 Mission Street, Suite 2400).

Delaware counsel (local counsel of record)

• Brian A. Biggs (DE Bar No. 5591) — DLA Piper LLP (US), 1201 North Market Street, Suite 2100, Wilmington, DE. Delaware counsel of record; signatory on Guardant's filings, including stipulations of dismissal (Sept. 22, 2023) and the Rule 50(b)/59 motion (D.I. 530, Mar. 4, 2024).
• Jeff Castellano (DE Bar No. 4837) — DLA Piper, Wilmington, DE. Delaware counsel of record; filed Guardant's JMOL/new-trial motion and the 2026 post-trial and bond-modification submissions (e.g., D.I. 530; D.I. 634; D.I. 641).
• Erin E. Larson (DE Bar No. 6616) — DLA Piper, Wilmington, DE. Delaware counsel; identified by VitalLaw as Guardant's attorney of record on the June 16, 2026 post-trial opinion/order.

Additional national/appellate counsel appearing for Guardant

• Weil, Gotshal & Manges LLP — Edward R. Reines and Derek C. Walter, 201 Redwood Shores Parkway, Redwood Shores (Silicon Valley), CA. Both appear on Guardant's district-court service lists (e.g., D.I. 135, Oct. 14, 2022); Weil maintains a dedicated case address (Guardant.Twinstrand@weil.com). Reines is a nationally ranked patent/IP appellate litigator (Chambers; former Federal Circuit Bar Association president; Bio-Rad/Univ. of Chicago and Illumina trial wins), and Legal 500 lists Guardant Health as a Weil patents-litigation client — relevant given Guardant's announced appeal of the final judgment. Role: merits/trial and appellate-side counsel; the docket does not label him "lead" in a fully legible line, so I do not assert that designation.
• Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati — Jad A. Mills and Michael T. Rosato, 701 Fifth Avenue, Suite 5100, Seattle, WA. Appeared on Guardant's behalf (appearance labeled "FOR THE DEFENDANT") at an August 3, 2023 deposition in the DNA-sequencing dispute. Caveat: this transcript is captioned to the related PTAB proceeding IPR2022-01400, in which Guardant is the patent owner; I could not confirm whether the Wilson Sonsini appearance extends to the Delaware merits case, so treat it as a PTAB-side appearance unless further confirmed.
• Edleson, Rezzo & Hindman — Jesse Hindman, 402 W. Broadway, Suite 1520, San Diego, CA. Listed on Guardant's district-court service list (D.I. 135). Role uncertain — appears to be additional/specialty counsel rather than Delaware local counsel (not admitted in D. Del. as local counsel).

In-house counsel

• John Saia — Chief Legal Officer, Guardant Health, Inc. (in-house). Publicly quoted as directing the company's post-judgment strategy: "We strongly disagree with this decision and will promptly be appealing for its overturn" (Guardant press release, Aug. 24, 2026; Reuters, Aug. 24, 2026). No in-house attorney has separately entered an appearance on the D. Del. docket that I could confirm.

PTAB-side (petitioner) counsel — IPR2022-00817

• The prior section already identified Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP (E. Joshua Rosenkranz, with Samantha M. Leff, New York) as counsel for Guardant as Appellant on the Federal Circuit appeal of the Board's decision. The trial-level PTAB petitioner counsel of record for IPR2022-00817 specifically is not confirmed by the results I retrieved — the mandatory-notices document I located in this family lists Sterne Kessler attorneys, but on its face it reads as a Patent Owner (UW/TwinStrand) updated mandatory notice rather than petitioner-side counsel, so I will not attribute Sterne Kessler to Guardant. I flag this as an open item rather than assert a firm.

Reliability caveats

• Much of the 2025–2026 activity on this docket is filed under seal (post-trial briefs, damages declarations, oral-argument and trial transcripts, notices of lodging). Roles and firm affiliations above are drawn from public, unsealed signature blocks and service lists on the CourtListener/PACER docket (No. 1:21-cv-01126, CourtListener docket 60105487) and from press/jury-verdict coverage (Law360 via Sterne Kessler's reprint; VitalLaw; Reuters, Aug. 24, 2026).
• The party alignment here contradicts the original "Case overview", which listed the patent owner as unidentified; the prior section's correction (Guardant = petitioner/defendant; University of Washington = patent owner, with TwinStrand as exclusive licensee and co-plaintiff) is consistent with all filings I reviewed and should be treated as authoritative.
• Final judgment was entered August 21, 2026 (upholding the Nov. 14, 2023 verdict; $83.4M past damages, $19.5M supplemental, $119.4M accrued royalties, $22.9M interest; 6% ongoing royalty), and Guardant announced its appeal on August 24, 2026 — consistent with the Weil/Orrick appellate posture noted above.