Guardant Health, Inc. v. Natera, Inc.
Case Number:
3:21-cv-04062
See also:
Court:
Nature of Suit:
Judge:
Firms
- A&O Shearman
- Conrad Metlitzky
- Gibson Dunn
- Jones Day
- Keller & Anderle
- Munger Tolles
- Quinn Emanuel
- Winston & Strawn
Companies
Sectors & Industries:
-
November 18, 2024
'You Stepped Over The Line': Judge Rips Quinn Emanuel Atty
A California federal judge told a Quinn Emanuel partner defending Natera Inc. at trial Monday in Guardant Health Inc.'s false advertising case that she'd be sanctioned over her questioning of a Natera expert about Guardant's alleged damages, saying, "You stepped over the line, and you did it several times."
-
November 15, 2024
Natera Exec Calls Guardant's Cancer Test Claims 'Dangerous'
Natera's president of clinical diagnostics testified at trial Friday in a California federal false advertising case that Guardant Health's claims about Guardant's competing colorectal cancer test were "false and misleading" and also "dangerous."
-
November 13, 2024
Guardant Atty Accuses Natera CEO Of Dishonesty At Trial
A Guardant Health lawyer on Wednesday accused Natera's CEO of being disingenuous when he testified at trial that a Natera ad campaign was aimed at correcting misleading information Guardant promoted about its competing colorectal cancer tests, exclaiming, "It was about money, wasn't it? Can't you just be honest about that?"
-
November 12, 2024
Guardant CEO Says Rival's False Ads Hurt 'Beautiful Baby'
Guardant Health's CEO testified Tuesday in his company's false advertising suit against Natera Inc. that its rival's "misleading" ad campaign hurt Guardant's colorectal cancer test launch, saying he felt like somebody had taken their "beautiful baby" and "slammed its head against the wall."
-
November 07, 2024
Ex-Natera VP Defends Ad Campaign Against Rival Guardant
A former Natera Inc. marketing vice president defended the company Thursday in a false advertising case launched by Guardant Health Inc., testifying that there was a sales and marketing campaign against Guardant's Reveal colorectal cancer test, but its aim was to address Guardant's "misleading" claims.
-
November 06, 2024
Natera Declared 'War' On Guardant, Jury Told At Trial's Start
Guardant on Wednesday told a California federal jury during opening statements in its false advertising lawsuit that rival Natera saw Guardant's competing colorectal cancer detection test as "an existential threat" and declared "war" while Natera maintained that its ads to doctors comparing the tests were meant "to educate, not deceive."
-
November 05, 2024
Eye-Rolling Must Stop, Judge Warns Before False Ad Trial
A California federal judge overseeing a false advertising dispute set to go to trial Wednesday between Guardant Health and Natera cautioned lawyers for the medical diagnostic testing companies on Tuesday to stop their "eye-rolling" when opposing counsel speaks and also urged the rivals to keep trying for a last-minute settlement.
-
November 04, 2024
Sanctions Lessened Against Testing Co. That 'Duped' Judge
A California federal judge Monday lessened sanctions imposed on Natera Inc. in a false advertising case first brought by rival Guardant Health Inc., allowing some clinical cancer study evidence to be presented at a trial starting Tuesday despite his earlier finding that Natera's expert and counsel had "duped" the court.
-
October 31, 2024
Judge 'Duped' By BigLaw Attys Urged To Preserve Sanctions
Guardant Health urged a California federal judge Thursday to reject a request from Natera's Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP attorneys to lessen sanctions barring clinical trial evidence in Guardant's false advertising case, noting the court said it had been "duped" by false and misleading statements from Natera's expert and counsel.
-
July 27, 2024
'Low-Grade Lawyering': Quinn Emanuel Attys Draw Judge's Ire
A California federal judge considering Guardant Health's sanctions bid in a false advertising case against rival Natera said Friday that representations to the court by Natera's attorneys from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP regarding a proposed expert witness were "less than forthright" and "pretty low-grade lawyering."