Unified Patents v. Tempus AI Inc

Unified Patents has filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00185, against U.S. Patent 10,991,097, owned by Tempus AI Inc., before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). This IPR is currently pending.

The petitioner, Unified Patents, is a member-based organization that aims to deter "patent trolls" (Non-Practicing Entities or NPEs) and reduce frivolous patent litigation by challenging the validity of low-quality patents through various strategies, including filing IPRs. The patent owner, Tempus AI Inc., is an operating health technology company founded in 2015, specializing in AI-driven precision medicine. Tempus AI leverages data and artificial intelligence to provide diagnostic services and therapy selection for conditions such as cancer, cardiology, and depression, engaging in genomic sequencing and molecular profiling.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent 10,991,097, titled "Methods and systems for cancer detection and therapy selection," describes methods, systems, and kits for identifying somatic mutations in biological samples using next-generation sequencing (NGS) and then associating those mutations with specific cancer therapies to inform treatment decisions. This IPR challenges the validity of this patent. The procedural posture of the case is an IPR before the PTAB, a specialized administrative court within the USPTO. This venue is significant as IPRs offer a streamlined and often more cost-effective alternative to district court litigation for challenging patent validity, with specialized administrative patent judges.

This case is notable because, while Unified Patents typically targets NPEs, Tempus AI is an active operating company in the high-growth and competitive field of AI-driven precision medicine and oncology diagnostics. The patent, US 10,991,097, is part of Tempus AI's intellectual property related to oncology liquid biopsy and has been asserted by Tempus AI in a separate district court infringement action against Guardant Health. Therefore, this IPR by Unified Patents likely serves as a defensive measure, potentially on behalf of its members, to challenge a patent that is actively being asserted in the marketplace, thereby impacting the competitive landscape in a critical area of healthcare technology.

Unified Patents filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition, IPR2026-00185, challenging US Patent 10,991,097, owned by Tempus AI Inc. While the prompt identifies Unified Patents as the petitioner, public records indicate Guardant Health Inc. as the petitioner in this specific IPR proceeding.

Here are the key legal developments and outcomes:

Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings:

• IPR Petition Filing (2025-12-30): An IPR petition, IPR2026-00185, was filed against U.S. Patent 10,991,097. The petition was filed on December 30, 2025, by the petitioner challenging Tempus AI Inc.'s patent.
• IPR Not Instituted (2026-04-28): The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a decision not to institute IPR2026-00185. The IPR was procedurally terminated on April 28, 2026, meaning the PTAB declined to proceed with a full review of the patent's claims.

Related District Court Litigation:

• Patent Infringement Assertion: U.S. Patent 10,991,097 is one of four patents asserted by Tempus AI Inc. in a patent infringement lawsuit against Guardant Health, Inc.. This district court case is separate from the IPR, with Tempus AI as the plaintiff alleging infringement. The patents broadly relate to oncology diagnostic technologies.
• Case Transfer (2026-05-26): On May 26, 2026, the California Southern District Court transferred the patent infringement case, Tempus AI vs. Guardant Health, to the Northern District of California. This transfer was made under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), likely due to arguments regarding the convenience of parties, witnesses, and the interests of justice, given Guardant Health's principal operations are in the Northern District. No damages were awarded, and no injunction was issued, and no merits determination was reached at this stage. The Northern District of California will now preside over claim construction for the asserted genomic analysis patents.

The non-institution of the IPR means that the validity of U.S. Patent 10,991,097 will not be reviewed by the PTAB in this particular proceeding, leaving the patent's validity to be potentially challenged through other means, such as in the ongoing district court litigation.

Despite the case caption and plaintiff listed in the prompt as "Unified Patents v. Tempus AI Inc" and "Unified Patents," respectively, public docket information for IPR2026-00185 indicates that Guardant Health, Inc. is the petitioner against Tempus AI, Inc., and lists "Rosato, Michael et al." as petitioner counsel. However, adhering to the provided case metadata, the following represents counsel typically associated with Unified Patents in their inter partes review (IPR) proceedings.

Unified Patents often utilizes a combination of in-house counsel and external law firms for its IPR petitions.

Unified Patents (In-house Counsel)

• Jordan Rossen
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Washington, DC office mentioned in other IPR filings)
  • Note: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. Prior to joining Unified, he practiced in IP litigation departments at Ropes & Gray and Paul Hastings for eleven years, handling cases across various industries including computer hardware and software, data processing, and medical devices.
• Roshan Mansinghani
  • Role: Head of Operations / Patent Counsel (also identified as Senior Patent Counsel in past filings)
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (Dallas, TX office mentioned in other IPR filings)
  • Note: Often involved in PTAB proceedings for Unified Patents.
• David Seastrunk
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC
  • Note: Prepares and litigates post-grant proceedings before the PTAB for Unified Patents. Previously practiced at Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, litigating all phases of post-grant proceedings, district court cases, and ITC investigations.
• Kelly R. Hughes
  • Role: Senior Patent Counsel
  • Firm: Unified Patents, LLC (also works with Erise IP, P.A. in some IPRs)
  • Note: Frequently appears as counsel for Unified Patents in IPR proceedings.

External Counsel (often associated with Unified Patents for IPRs)

• Jason R. Mudd
  • Role: Lead Counsel (in other IPR filings for Unified Patents)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A. (Overland Park, Kansas office)
  • Note: Frequently represents petitioners in inter partes review proceedings before the PTAB.
• Eric A. Buresh
  • Role: Back-up Counsel (in other IPR filings for Unified Patents)
  • Firm: Erise IP, P.A. (Overland Park, Kansas office)
  • Note: Often appears as counsel for petitioners in PTAB proceedings.

It is important to reiterate that while the prompt identifies Unified Patents as the plaintiff in IPR2026-00185, public records for this specific case currently show Guardant Health, Inc. as the petitioner, with "Rosato, Michael et al." listed as their counsel. Therefore, the individuals listed above are Unified Patents' typical IPR counsel based on general information and other IPR filings, rather than a direct confirmation from the IPR2026-00185 docket for Unified Patents.

Based on the provided case metadata, Unified Patents filed an inter partes review (IPR) petition against Tempus AI Inc. in case IPR2026-00185, which is currently pending before the PTAB. However, a direct web search for IPR2026-00185 indicates a different petitioner and status, leading to a discrepancy.

Specifically, public records for IPR2026-00185 show the petitioner as Guardant Health, Inc., not Unified Patents, and the case was terminated with a discretionary denial on April 27, 2026. This directly contradicts the authoritative metadata provided in the prompt, which states the plaintiff is Unified Patents and the case is pending.

Given this conflict, it is not possible to identify the specific counsel of record for Tempus AI Inc. in a pending IPR2026-00185 initiated by Unified Patents, as the publicly available information for that case number pertains to a different, already-terminated proceeding.

However, based on other patent litigation involving Tempus AI, the company has retained prominent counsel in intellectual property matters.

Counsel for Tempus AI Inc. in Related Patent Litigation (Not IPR2026-00185 as described in the prompt)

In district court litigation, Tempus AI, Inc. v. Guardant Health, Inc. (which also involved US Patent 10,991,097 among others), Tempus AI Inc. was represented by:

• Brian P. Biddinger (Lead Counsel)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Likely Chicago or California (Quinn Emanuel has multiple offices, but Tempus AI is Chicago-based and the district court case was in California)
  • Note: Represents technology companies in complex intellectual property litigations, including patent infringement.
• Margaret Shyr (Counsel)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Unspecified in search results, but likely same as above.
• Andrew Jonathan Bramhall (Counsel)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Unspecified in search results, but likely same as above.
• Kevin P.B. Johnson (Counsel)
  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP
  • Office Location: Unspecified in search results, but likely same as above.

In-House Counsel at Tempus AI Inc. with IP Experience

Tempus AI also has in-house legal professionals with significant intellectual property experience who would likely oversee and coordinate any outside counsel in patent matters:

• Jennifer R. Davis, Esq. (Associate General Counsel, Intellectual Property)
  • Role: In-house counsel
  • Firm: Tempus AI, Inc.
  • Note: Focuses on intellectual property, corporate transactions, and licensing, with expertise in patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and open-source assets. Has prior experience at Spotify and IBM.
• Tom Ferrone (Deputy General Counsel)
  • Role: In-house counsel
  • Firm: Tempus AI, Inc.
  • Note: Has served in various corporate law roles at Tempus AI since 2018 and previously focused on intellectual property litigations as an Associate at Quinn Emanuel.