Commitments and Contingencies	6 Months Ended
Jun. 30, 2025
Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]
Commitments and Contingencies	Commitments and Contingencies Legal Proceedings In addition to commitments and obligations incurred in the ordinary course of business, from time to time the Company may be subject to a variety of claims and legal proceedings, including claims from customers and vendors, pending and potential legal actions for damages, governmental investigations and other matters. For example, the Company has received, and may in the future continue to receive letters, claims or complaints from others alleging false advertising, patent infringement, violation of employment practices and trademark infringement. The Company has also instituted, and may in the future institute, additional legal proceedings to enforce its rights and seek remedies, such as monetary damages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief. The Company cannot predict the results of any such disputes, and despite the potential outcomes, the existence thereof may have an adverse material impact on the Company because of diversion of management time and attention as well as the financial costs related to resolving such disputes. The Company and its affiliates are parties to the legal claims and proceedings described below. The Company is vigorously defending itself against those claims and in those proceedings. Significant developments in those matters are described below. If the Company is unsuccessful in defending, or if it determines to settle, any of these matters, it may be required to pay substantial sums, be subject to injunction and/or be forced to change how it operates its business, which could have a material adverse impact on its financial position or results of operations. Unless otherwise stated, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss or a range of possible loss for the matters described below. Often, it is not reasonably possible for the Company to determine that a loss is probable for a claim, or to reasonably estimate the amount of loss or a range of loss, because of the limited information available and the potential effects of future events and decisions by third parties, such as courts and regulators, that will determine the ultimate resolution of the claim. Many of the matters described are at preliminary stages, raise novel theories of liability or seek an indeterminate amount of damages. It is not uncommon for claims to be resolved over a number of years. The Company reviews loss contingencies at least quarterly to determine whether the loss probability has changed and whether it can make a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. When the Company determines that a loss from a claim is probable and reasonably estimable, it records a liability in the amount of its estimate for the ultimate loss. The Company also provides disclosure when it is reasonably possible that a loss may be incurred or when it is reasonably possible that the amount of a loss will exceed its recorded liability. Intellectual Property Disputes In August 2021, TwinStrand Biosciences, Inc., or TwinStrand Biosciences, and the University of Washington filed a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 10,287,631; 10,689,699; 10,752,951; and 10,760,127. The Company answered the complaint in October 2021, denying TwinStrand Biosciences’ allegations and asserted counterclaims of invalidity, unenforceability due to inequitable conduct and infringement of four of the Company’s patents. Discovery in the case has concluded. In 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. On November 14, 2023, a jury verdict was entered in favor of TwinStrand Biosciences and the University of Washington and against the Company. The jury found that the Company willfully infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 10,287,631 and 10,760,127, and awarded TwinStrand Biosciences and the University of Washington $83.4 million in damages, representing a 6% royalty on past sales. As a result, the Company recorded a liability of $83.4 million in the fourth quarter of 2023, which was reflected as a charge to other operating expense on its consolidated statements of operations, and as a component of other long-term liabilities on its consolidated balance sheets. Post-trial motions were filed on March 4, 2024, where the Company moved to overturn the jury’s verdict, seek a new trial, and/or amend the judgment, and TwinStrand Biosciences moved for enhanced damages based on the jury's finding of willful infringement, pre- and post-judgment interest, and a go-forward running royalty. A hearing date has not yet been set on the post-trial motions. The Company strongly disagrees with the jury verdict and will vigorously contest the verdict and judgment through post-trial motions in the District Court, and if needed, through appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. On June 11, 2024, the Company filed a patent infringement suit against Tempus AI, Inc., or Tempus, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Tempus infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 11,149,306; 9,902,992; 10,501,810; 10,793,916; and 11,643,693. The Company is seeking an injunction to stop Tempus’ infringement and compensatory damages. The case Guardant Health, Inc. v. Tempus AI, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00687, has been assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams. On October 21, 2024, Tempus moved to dismiss the Company’s suit alleging that some of the asserted patents were invalid. The Company opposed the motion, which is pending. The Court also entered a scheduling order with trial set for May 2027. On March 14, 2025, Tempus filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging that the Company infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 10,957,041; 10,991,097; 11,640,859; and 12,112,839. The patents are generally directed at bioinformatic analysis technology. The case has been assigned to Judge Jinsook Ohta. On May 5, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Tempus’ complaint and a motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and a hearing on the motions is set for July 31, 2025. A scheduling order has not yet been entered the case. The Company maintains that Tempus’ allegations are without merit. On March 6, 2025, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, or CSHL, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Copy Number Variation, or CNV, calling in Guardant360 infringes U.S. Patent No. 10,947,589. The patent is generally directed at gene sequencing and analysis technology. The case has been assigned to Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves. On May 28, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss CSHL claims, which is pending. Discovery is ongoing, with a Markman hearing scheduled for April 2, 2026 and trial on April 19, 2027. The Company maintains that CSHL’s allegations are without merit. False Advertising Disputes In May 2021, the Company also filed a lawsuit against Natera, Inc., or Natera, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, wherein the Company alleged that Natera is misleading healthcare providers about the performance of the Company’s new oncology test, Guardant Reveal, by suggesting the test is inaccurate and/or insensitive, and inferior to Natera’s Signatera assay. The Company is seeking an injunction to prevent Natera from continuing to make false and misleading statements and to require Natera to take corrective actions. Natera asserted counterclaims of false and misleading statements, false advertising, unlawful trade practices and unfair competition. The Company moved to dismiss Natera’s counterclaims, and in January 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss. On November 25, 2024, after a three-week trial before Judge Edward M. Chen, the jury unanimously found in favor of the Company on all of its claims against Natera for false advertising and unfair competition. The jury awarded the Company $292.5 million, including $175.5 million in punitive damages. The jury also unanimously rejected all of Natera’s counterclaims against the Company. Both parties have filed post-trial motions. On July 9, 2025, Judge Chen granted the Company’s motions for sanctions, awarding approximately $3 million in attorneys’ fees and ordering the assignment of a special master to evaluate additional punitive sanctions against Natera. On July 28, 2025, Judge Chen issued orders on the remaining outstanding post-trial motions, denying Natera’s motion for a new trial and motion for equitable claims. Judge Chen also granted in part the Company’s motions, including providing injunctive relief preventing Natera from continuing its false advertising and affirming a total damages award of $287.0 million. On January 13, 2025, Tempus sent the Company a letter alleging that the Company made certain false or misleading statements in its advertising related to Guardant360 and Tempus’ xF+ assay. The Company strongly disagrees with Tempus’ allegations and responded to each allegation. On January 17, 2025, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action against Tempus in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, seeking to show that Tempus’ allegations are without merit. On March 17, 2025, Tempus responded to the Company’s complaint and filed false advertising counterclaims. The case has been assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams, with discovery ongoing and trial set for September 2027. Other Legal Matters The Company is currently a defendant in two wage and hour class action lawsuits filed in two separate California Superior Courts alleging violations of various provisions of the California Labor Code, including overlapping claims for unpaid minimum wage, overtime, off-the-clock work, meal and rest period violations, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to pay all wages due upon termination, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. In one of the lawsuits, the plaintiff is also asserting class claims that the Company required employees to sign agreements containing an unlawful post-employment non-compete/non-solicitation clause restraining their engagement in a lawful trade or business. The plaintiffs in both actions seek class certification on behalf of similarly situated employees employed by the Company in California during the relevant statutory period. Each complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, penalties, interest, and attorneys’ fees. The Company denies the allegations. At this stage of the proceedings, the court has not certified the case as a class action, and formal discovery has not yet commenced in either action. At this early stage of the litigation, the outcome of these two pending matters remains uncertain.

In addition to commitments and obligations incurred in the ordinary course of business, from time to time the Company may be subject to a variety of claims and legal proceedings, including claims from customers and vendors, pending and potential legal actions for damages, governmental investigations and other matters. For example, the Company has received, and may in the future continue to receive letters, claims or complaints from others alleging false advertising, patent infringement, violation of employment practices and trademark infringement. The Company has also instituted, and may in the future institute, additional legal proceedings to enforce its rights and seek remedies, such as monetary damages, injunctive relief and declaratory relief. The Company cannot predict the results of any such disputes, and despite the potential outcomes, the existence thereof may have an adverse material impact on the Company because of diversion of management time and attention as well as the financial costs related to resolving such disputes.

The Company and its affiliates are parties to the legal claims and proceedings described below. The Company is vigorously defending itself against those claims and in those proceedings. Significant developments in those matters are described below. If the Company is unsuccessful in defending, or if it determines to settle, any of these matters, it may be required to pay substantial sums, be subject to injunction and/or be forced to change how it operates its business, which could have a material adverse impact on its financial position or results of operations.

Unless otherwise stated, the Company is unable to reasonably estimate the loss or a range of possible loss for the matters described below. Often, it is not reasonably possible for the Company to determine that a loss is probable for a claim, or to reasonably estimate the amount of loss or a range of loss, because of the limited information available and the potential effects of future events and decisions by third parties, such as courts and regulators, that will determine the ultimate resolution of the claim. Many of the matters described are at preliminary stages, raise novel theories of liability or seek an indeterminate amount of damages. It is not uncommon for claims to be resolved over a number of years. The Company reviews loss contingencies at least quarterly to determine whether the loss probability has changed and whether it can make a reasonable estimate of the possible loss or range of loss. When the Company determines that a loss from a claim is probable and reasonably estimable, it records a liability in the amount of its estimate for the ultimate loss. The Company also provides disclosure when it is reasonably possible that a loss may be incurred or when it is reasonably possible that the amount of a loss will exceed its recorded liability.

In August 2021, TwinStrand Biosciences, Inc., or TwinStrand Biosciences, and the University of Washington filed a patent infringement suit in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that the Company infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 10,287,631; 10,689,699; 10,752,951; and 10,760,127. The Company answered the complaint in October 2021, denying TwinStrand Biosciences’ allegations and asserted counterclaims of invalidity, unenforceability due to inequitable conduct and infringement of four of the Company’s patents. Discovery in the case has concluded. In 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.

On November 14, 2023, a jury verdict was entered in favor of TwinStrand Biosciences and the University of Washington and against the Company. The jury found that the Company willfully infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 10,287,631 and 10,760,127, and awarded TwinStrand Biosciences and the University of Washington $83.4 million in damages, representing a 6% royalty on past sales. As a result, the Company recorded a liability of $83.4 million in the fourth quarter of 2023, which was reflected as a charge to other operating expense on its consolidated statements of operations, and as a component of other long-term liabilities on its consolidated balance sheets. Post-trial motions were filed on March 4, 2024, where the Company moved to overturn the jury’s verdict, seek a new trial, and/or amend the judgment, and TwinStrand Biosciences moved for enhanced damages based on the jury's finding of willful infringement, pre- and post-judgment interest, and a go-forward running royalty. A hearing date has not yet been set on the post-trial motions. The Company strongly disagrees with the jury verdict and will vigorously contest the verdict and judgment through post-trial motions in the District Court, and if needed, through appeal to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.

On June 11, 2024, the Company filed a patent infringement suit against Tempus AI, Inc., or Tempus, in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Tempus infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 11,149,306; 9,902,992; 10,501,810; 10,793,916; and 11,643,693. The Company is seeking an injunction to stop Tempus’ infringement and compensatory damages. The case Guardant Health, Inc. v. Tempus AI, Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-00687, has been assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams. On October 21, 2024, Tempus moved to dismiss the Company’s suit alleging that some of the asserted patents were invalid. The Company opposed the motion, which is pending. The Court also entered a scheduling order with trial set for May 2027. On March 14, 2025, Tempus filed a patent infringement lawsuit in the United States District Court for the Southern District of California, alleging that the Company infringes U.S. Patent Nos. 10,957,041; 10,991,097; 11,640,859; and 12,112,839. The patents are generally directed at bioinformatic analysis technology. The case has been assigned to Judge Jinsook Ohta. On May 5, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss Tempus’ complaint and a motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and a hearing on the motions is set for July 31, 2025. A scheduling order has not yet been entered the case. The Company maintains that Tempus’ allegations are without merit.

On March 6, 2025, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, or CSHL, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against the Company in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, alleging that Copy Number Variation, or CNV, calling in Guardant360 infringes U.S. Patent No. 10,947,589. The patent is generally directed at gene sequencing and analysis technology. The case has been assigned to Judge Jennifer Choe-Groves. On May 28, 2025, the Company filed a motion to dismiss CSHL claims, which is pending. Discovery is ongoing, with a Markman hearing scheduled for April 2, 2026 and trial on April 19, 2027. The Company maintains that CSHL’s allegations are without merit.

In May 2021, the Company also filed a lawsuit against Natera, Inc., or Natera, in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, wherein the Company alleged that Natera is misleading healthcare providers about the performance of the Company’s new oncology test, Guardant Reveal, by suggesting the test is inaccurate and/or insensitive, and inferior to Natera’s Signatera assay. The Company is seeking an injunction to prevent Natera from continuing to make false and misleading statements and to require Natera to take corrective actions. Natera asserted counterclaims of false and misleading statements, false advertising, unlawful trade practices and unfair competition. The Company moved to dismiss Natera’s counterclaims, and in January 2022, the court granted in part and denied in part the Company's motion to dismiss.

On November 25, 2024, after a three-week trial before Judge Edward M. Chen, the jury unanimously found in favor of the Company on all of its claims against Natera for false advertising and unfair competition. The jury awarded the Company $292.5 million, including $175.5 million in punitive damages. The jury also unanimously rejected all of Natera’s counterclaims against the Company. Both parties have filed post-trial motions. On July 9, 2025, Judge Chen granted the Company’s motions for sanctions, awarding approximately $3 million in attorneys’ fees and ordering the assignment of a special master to evaluate additional punitive sanctions against Natera. On July 28, 2025, Judge Chen issued orders on the remaining outstanding post-trial motions, denying Natera’s motion for a new trial and motion for equitable claims. Judge Chen also granted in part the Company’s motions, including providing injunctive relief preventing Natera from continuing its false advertising and affirming a total damages award of $287.0 million.

On January 13, 2025, Tempus sent the Company a letter alleging that the Company made certain false or misleading statements in its advertising related to Guardant360 and Tempus’ xF+ assay. The Company strongly disagrees with Tempus’ allegations and responded to each allegation. On January 17, 2025, the Company filed a declaratory judgment action against Tempus in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, seeking to show that Tempus’ allegations are without merit. On March 17, 2025, Tempus responded to the Company’s complaint and filed false advertising counterclaims. The case has been assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams, with discovery ongoing and trial set for September 2027.

The Company is currently a defendant in two wage and hour class action lawsuits filed in two separate California Superior Courts alleging violations of various provisions of the California Labor Code, including overlapping claims for unpaid minimum wage, overtime, off-the-clock work, meal and rest period violations, failure to reimburse business expenses, failure to pay all wages due upon termination, and failure to provide accurate wage statements. In one of the lawsuits, the plaintiff is also asserting class claims that the Company required employees to sign agreements containing an unlawful post-employment non-compete/non-solicitation clause restraining their engagement in a lawful trade or business. The plaintiffs in both actions seek class certification on behalf of similarly situated employees employed by the Company in California during the relevant statutory period. Each complaint seeks unspecified monetary damages, penalties, interest, and attorneys’ fees. The Company denies the allegations.