IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Del.: Court lets stand $83.4 million jury verdict in DNA-sequencing case, (Jun 23, 2026)

By Brian Craig, J.D.

Guardant lost its bid to overturn the $83.4 million verdict based on willful infringement and must pay a 6% ongoing royalty.

In a case involving patents for DNA-sequencing owned by the University of Washington and exclusively licensed to TwinStrand Biosciences Inc., the federal district court in Delaware has affirmed a jury verdict of $83.4 against biotechnology company Guardant Health Inc. after the jury found that Guardant’s liquid biopsy cancer test kits infringe the patents. In denying Guardant’s bid to overturn the jury verdict of willful infringement and request for a new trial, the court found that substantial evidence supports the jury verdict based on expert testimony. The court, however, denied the request for enhanced damages and instead imposed an ongoing 6% royalty rate (TwinStrand Biosciences, Inc. v. Guardant Health Inc., No. 1:21-cv-01126-GBW-SRF (D. Del. Jun. 16, 2026)).

The University of Washington owns U.S. Patent No. 10,287,631 and U.S. Patent No. 10,760,127, both related to DNA-sequencing. The patents involve error-reducing “duplex sequencing” technology utilized in cancer-testing and liquid biopsy kits. The University of Washington exclusively licenses the patents to TwinStrand Biosciences Inc. TwinStrand Biosciences and the University of Washington filed suit against Guardant Health Inc. (“Guardant”) alleging infringement of the patents. After a five-day jury trial in November 2023, the jury found that Guardant willfully infringed the patents and awarded $83.4 million in damages. The parties filed post-trial motions. Guardant sought a renewed motion for judgment of law seeking to overturn the jury verdict, or in the alternative, a new trial on damages. TwinStrand Biosciences and the University of Washington sought enhanced damages.

Willful infringement. The court first concluded that substantial evidence supports the jury’s finding of willful infringement. Based on the evidence presented during the trial, the jury could find that infringement was “deliberate or intentional” to support the finding of willfulness. The court held that it is not within the court’s purview to go back and overrule the jury’s credibility determinations or decide who the jury should have believed in reaching its damages award. The jury heard testimony from different experts on damages. The court found that the jury could determine whether to agree or disagree with the opinions on damages. The court rejected Guardant’s attempts to relitigate the reliability of the experts for TwinStrand Biosciences and their methodology. The court previously denied a motion to exclude the expert testimony. Therefore, based on the evidence presented during the trial, the court denied the renewed motion for judgment of law and motion for a new trial on damages.

Enhanced damages. The court denied, however, requests to award enhanced damages. Both TwinStrand Biosciences and the University of Washington requested that the court award triple damages based on willful infringement. While some factors weigh against enhancement, including the closeness of the litigation, other factors weigh in favor of enhancement with other factors being neutral. The court determined that Guardian did not engage in the sort of conduct that warrants enhanced damages.

Ongoing royalty. The court decided to impose a 6% ongoing royalty rate for infringing sales.

The jury awarded $83.4 million in damages as a form of a reasonable royalty, by applying a 6% royalty rate to a $1.39 billion revenue base. The court followed the jury’s same reasoning in applying the ongoing royalty rate. The court found that an adjudicated willful infringer would not be able to negotiate a rate lower than the rate awarded by the jury.

Newly-discovered evidence. Finally, the court denied Guardant Health's motion to amend the judgment based on allegations of newly discovered evidence. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure allows a court to modify a judgment if a significant change either in factual conditions or in the law renders continued enforcement detrimental to the public interest. The statements are largely statements that summarize previous proceedings involving a phrase in the patent claims. The court found that the statements at issue do not constitute a clear and unmistakable disclaimer. The court found that the statements are at most “ambiguous” and do not amount to a clear and unmistakable disclaimer of claimed subject matter.

Therefore, the court denied the post-trial motions for renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law or for a new trial and the request for enhanced damages.

The Case is No. 1:21-cv-01126-GBW-SRF.

Judge: Williams, G.

Attorneys: Adam Wyatt Poff (Young, Conaway, Stargatt & Taylor LLP) for TwinStrand Biosciences, Inc. Erin E. Larson (DLA Piper LLP) for Guardant Health, Inc.

Companies: TwinStrand Biosciences, Inc.; Guardant Health, Inc.

Cases: Patent DelawareNews