Guardant Health, Inc. v. Tempus AI, Inc.

Guardant Health, Inc., a publicly traded precision oncology company based in Palo Alto, California, initiated this patent infringement lawsuit against Tempus AI, Inc., a Chicago-based health technology company that leverages artificial intelligence and data for precision medicine. Guardant Health specializes in developing and commercializing liquid biopsy tests and data-driven solutions for cancer detection, monitoring, and treatment guidance. Tempus AI focuses on applying machine learning to extensive clinical and molecular data to create diagnostic services and personalized treatment recommendations, particularly in oncology. This case represents a significant clash between two major operating companies competing directly in the rapidly growing and strategically important fields of liquid biopsy and AI-driven precision oncology.

The asserted patent in this litigation is US10793916, among others. Guardant Health alleges that Tempus AI infringes these patents through its liquid biopsy sequencing methods and products, specifically identifying Tempus xF, Tempus xF+, and Tempus xM Monitor tests as the accused technologies. While a precise one-line technical sketch for US10793916 was not directly retrievable from public search results, the patent generally pertains to innovations in liquid biopsy sequencing methods and genomic data analysis technologies used for cancer diagnostics.

The case is being heard in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, with Case Number 1:24-cv-00687. The case has been assigned to Judge Richard Andrews. The District of Delaware is a prominent venue for patent litigation due to a high concentration of companies incorporated in the state, which establishes proper venue post- TC Heartland, and the court's experienced judiciary in handling complex patent matters, offering a degree of predictability in litigation proceedings. This litigation is notable not only for the high-stakes competition between Guardant Health and Tempus AI in a cutting-edge healthcare market but also as part of a broader landscape of intellectual property disputes within the liquid biopsy and AI diagnostics industry, reflecting intense innovation and rivalry among key players.

Guardant Health, Inc. v. Tempus AI, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00687, is an active patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Guardant Health asserts infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 11,149,306; 9,902,992; 10,501,810; 10,793,916; and 11,643,693.

Here are the key legal developments in chronological order:

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2024-06-11: Guardant Health, Inc. filed its patent infringement lawsuit against Tempus AI, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging infringement of five patents related to DNA-based cancer testing and seeking an injunction and compensatory damages.
• 2024-11-04: Guardant Health filed a First Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement.
• 2025-03-17: Tempus AI, Inc. responded to Guardant's complaint and filed false advertising counterclaims.

2. Pre-trial Motions of Substance

• 2024-10-21: Tempus AI, Inc. filed a motion to dismiss Guardant's suit, arguing that some of the asserted patents were invalid. This motion remains pending before the court.
• 2025-03-14: In a separate but related action, Tempus AI, Inc. filed its own patent infringement lawsuit against Guardant Health, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.
• 2025-05: The Southern District of California court granted Guardant's motion to transfer Tempus's infringement lawsuit to the Northern District of California.
• 2025-08-12: The Delaware court issued an order granting a joint motion to consolidate cases, specifically Guardant Health, Inc. v. Tempus AI, Inc. (1:24-cv-00687-GBW) and another related case (1:25-cv-01013-GBW).
• 2026-01-21: In the parallel litigation (Tempus AI, Inc. v. Guardant Health, Inc., Case No. 3:25-cv-06622) in the Northern District of California, the court granted Guardant's motion to dismiss Tempus's patent infringement claims with prejudice. The court found that Tempus's asserted patents (U.S. Patent Nos. 10,957,041; 10,991,097; 11,640,859; and 12,112,839) were directed at patent-ineligible subject matter.
• 2026-02-09: Final judgment was entered in favor of Guardant Health in the Northern District of California case. Tempus AI has indicated its intention to appeal this ruling.

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes

• 2026-10-20: A Markman hearing (claim construction hearing) is currently reset for this date in the District of Delaware case before Judge Gregory B. Williams.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance

• Discovery in the District of Delaware case is ongoing.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-trial Motions

• 2028-10-23: A five-day jury trial is currently reset for this date in the District of Delaware before Judge Gregory B. Williams.
• No trial, verdict, or post-trial motions have occurred in this specific litigation to date.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal

• The case remains active in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.
• 2028-10-17: A Final Pretrial Conference is scheduled for this date.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings

• IPR2025-01435: Tempus AI Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) against Guardant Health Inc., challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,149,306, which is one of the patents asserted in the district court litigation. A Final Written Decision was issued on 2025-12-18. The specific outcome of this IPR regarding the patentability of the claims of US11149306 is not detailed in the available search results, but such a decision could significantly impact the scope or validity of claims in the ongoing district court case.

Guardant Health, Inc. is represented by a team of attorneys from several firms in its patent infringement case against Tempus AI, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware.

The counsel of record for Guardant Health, Inc. includes:

• Eric P. Tuttle

  • Firm: Choate Hall & Stewart LLP
  • Office Location: Boston, MA
  • Relevant Experience: Eric Tuttle is a partner in Choate's Intellectual Property Litigation Group and has extensive experience in high-stakes patent litigation across various technologies, including biotechnology and medical technology. He has represented clients in federal courts and before the PTAB. He has represented Foundation Medicine in patent infringement lawsuits and IPR proceedings related to analyzing cell-free DNA for cancer detection.

• Michael T. Rosato

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
  • Office Location: Palo Alto, CA
  • Relevant Experience: Michael Rosato is a partner specializing in patent litigation, particularly in the life sciences and technology sectors. He was part of a nine-attorney team representing Guardant Health in Guardant Health, Inc. v. University of Washington, a dispute concerning DNA sequencing patents.

• Jordan R. Jaffe

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
  • Office Location: Palo Alto, CA
  • Relevant Experience: Jordan Jaffe is a partner focusing on patent litigation, primarily in the biotechnology and pharmaceutical industries. He has represented numerous companies in complex patent disputes.

• Wendy L. Devine

  • Firm: Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C.
  • Office Location: San Diego, CA
  • Relevant Experience: Wendy Devine is a partner whose practice focuses on patent litigation, particularly for biotechnology and pharmaceutical companies.

• Andrew L. Brown

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE
  • Relevant Experience: Andrew Brown is a partner at Potter Anderson & Corroon, a prominent Delaware firm often serving as local counsel in federal court litigation, including intellectual property cases.

• Bindu Ann George Palapura

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE
  • Relevant Experience: Bindu Palapura is a partner at Potter Anderson & Corroon with experience in intellectual property litigation in the District of Delaware.

• David Ellis Moore

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE
  • Relevant Experience: David Moore is a partner at Potter Anderson & Corroon and is experienced in complex commercial litigation, including intellectual property disputes, in Delaware's federal and state courts.

It appears that Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe LLP was also mentioned in connection with Guardant Health in a Federal Circuit case (Guardant Health, Inc. v. University of Washington), but the primary firms identified for the Tempus AI case are Choate Hall & Stewart LLP and Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C. for lead counsel, and Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP as local counsel.

Tempus AI, Inc., the defendant in Guardant Health, Inc. v. Tempus AI, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00687, is represented by attorneys from Bartlit Beck LLP and Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP. The following counsel have been identified in a February 20, 2026, Memorandum Opinion from a related, consolidated case (Civil Action No. 25-82-GBW, which refers to 1:24-cv-00687) in the District of Delaware:

Counsel for Tempus AI, Inc. (Defendant)

• Sean Gallagher (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Bartlit Beck LLP
  • Office Location: Chicago, IL
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Sean Gallagher is a partner at Bartlit Beck and has extensive experience in complex litigation, including patent infringement cases.

• Brian Swanson (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Bartlit Beck LLP
  • Office Location: Chicago, IL
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Brian Swanson is a partner at Bartlit Beck, specializing in high-stakes litigation, including patent disputes across various technologies.

• Anastasiya Maione (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Bartlit Beck LLP
  • Office Location: Chicago, IL
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Anastasiya Maione is a partner at Bartlit Beck, with experience in patent litigation and other complex commercial disputes.

• Lee Mason (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Bartlit Beck LLP
  • Office Location: Chicago, IL
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Lee Mason is a partner at Bartlit Beck, focusing on intellectual property and complex commercial litigation.

• Grace Kavinsky (Lead Counsel)

  • Firm: Bartlit Beck LLP
  • Office Location: Chicago, IL
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Grace Kavinsky is a partner at Bartlit Beck, involved in various litigation matters, including patent infringement.

• Pilar G. Kraman (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Pilar Kraman is a partner at Young Conaway, focusing on intellectual property litigation in the District of Delaware.

• Jennifer P. Siew (Local Counsel)

  • Firm: Young Conaway Stargatt & Taylor, LLP
  • Office Location: Wilmington, DE
  • Relevant Patent Litigation Experience: Jennifer Siew is an attorney at Young Conaway, practicing in intellectual property litigation, particularly in the District of Delaware.