U.S. Jury Awards $83.4 Million in Patent Infringement Case
A jury has reportedly ruled that Guardant Health, a precision oncology company, is on the hook for $83.4 million in a federal patent case. The U.S. District Court of Delaware jury found that Guardant Health’s cancer-testing kits willfully infringed two patents, U.S. Patent Nos. 10,760,127 and 10,287,631, belonging to the University of Washington. The patents claim duplex sequencing technology and are exclusively licensed to the biotechnology company, TwinStrand Biosciences.
The technology has been described as “10,000 times more accurate than typical next-generation sequencing, by independently checking both strands of DNA and matching them up to eliminate reading errors”. TwinStrand Biosciences uses this method to underpin its blood plasma tests for detecting rare and difficult-to-identify genetic mutations that are linked to various cancers. The patented method was reportedly developed by Twinstrand Biosciences’ former CEO, Dr. Jesse Salk, while a medical student at the university, with his colleagues.
The licensee first filed a lawsuit against Guardant Health in 2021, claiming infringement through the sale of its FDA-approved Guardant 360 CDx product and other commercial products in cancer screening, detection and characterization. While the defendant did not challenge the validity of either patent at trial, they filed three petitions to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) beforehand, two of which attacked the validity of the ‘127 patent. The PTAB only reviewed one petition on the ‘127 patent and ultimately rejected Guardant Health’s invalidity arguments.
The jury agreed with the plaintiffs, finding that they were owed $83.4 million in royalty payments, which equated to 6% of about $1.4 billion in revenues. As noted by FierceBiotech, Guardant Health plans to appeal not only the jury’s decision, but also the PTAB’s findings, stating that they “believe the ruling ignores the strengths and merits of our R&D and intellectual property, which [they] painstakingly developed for over a decade”.
Author: Emily Groper, 2023/2024 Articling Student-At-Law
Photo Credit: ANIRUDH on Unsplash
Expertise
Insights
-
Intellectual Property Litigation
Trademarks Opposition Board Moves to Digital-Only Submission of Confidential Information
As of June 1, 2026, the Trademarks Opposition Board (TMOB) requires all confidential evidence and documentation in proceedings under sections 11.13, 38, or 45 of the Trademarks Act (the “Act”) to be… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Kansas City Chiefs Stars Sued for Trademark Infringement Over Steakhouse
The sneaker company, 1587 Sneakers, is reportedly suing Kansas City Chiefs players, Patrick Mahomes and Travis Kelce, along with their restaurant partners, for trademark infringement.1587 Sneakers… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Pecking Order Problem: Pudgy Penguins Faces Penguin Trademark Lawsuit
As reported by Bloomberg Law News, PEI Licensing (“PEI”), the owner of the Penguin apparel brand, has sued Pudgy Penguins NFT (“Pudgy Penguins”) for trademark infringement.Pudgy Penguins started as a… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Old Brand, New Problems? Nike’s Attempt to Revive “Total 90” Soccer Cleats
Nike is reportedly attempting to revive its classic “Total 90” soccer cleat line, but has encountered an unexpected setback. Total90, LLC has reportedly asserted that Nike is infringing its… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
A Swing and a Miss: The “All Rise” Trademark Attempt
As reported by Bloomberg, attempts to register marks covering the phrases “All Rise” and “Here Comes the Judge” were rejected by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. In… -
Intellectual Property Litigation
Hershey’s Kisses Go to Court – Federal Court of Appeal Decision in PIM Brands Inc. v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC
The Federal Court of Appeal’s recent decision in Promotion in Motion, Inc. (PIM Brands, Inc.) v. Hershey Chocolate & Confectionery LLC offers fresh guidance on how courts evaluate survey evidence…