Item 1A. Risk Factors

Set forth below is only a summary of the principal risks associated with our business. You should consider carefully the following discussion of risks, as well as the full discussion of risks included in this Annual Report on Form 10-K.

•We have incurred significant losses since inception, we may continue to incur losses in the future and we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to achieve and maintain profitability.

•We may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to achieve and maintain profitability and our current or future products may not achieve or maintain sufficient commercial market acceptance.

•Our operating results may fluctuate significantly, which makes our future operating results difficult to predict and could cause our operating results to fall below expectations or any guidance we may provide.

•New product development and commercialization involve a lengthy and complex process and we may be unable to develop or commercialize new products on a timely basis, or at all.

•Our current revenue is primarily generated from sales of our tests and we are highly dependent on them for our success.

•If our products, or our competitors’ liquid or tissue biopsy-based products, do not meet the expectations of patients and our customers, our operating results, reputation and business could suffer.

•If we are unable to support demand for our current and future products, including ensuring that we have adequate capacity to meet increased demand, or we are unable to successfully manage our anticipated growth, our business could suffer.

•We rely on a limited number of suppliers or sole suppliers for some of our laboratory instruments and materials and may not be able to find replacements or promptly transition to alternative suppliers.

•If we cannot maintain our current relationships, or enter into new relationships, with biopharmaceutical companies, our revenue prospects could be reduced.

•If we cannot compete successfully with our competitors, we may be unable to increase or sustain our revenue or to achieve and then sustain profitability.

•We conduct business in a heavily regulated industry, and changes in regulations or violations of regulations may, directly or indirectly, reduce our revenue, adversely affect our operations and financial condition, and harm our business.

•Certain of our tests are currently marketed as LDTs, and future changes in FDA enforcement discretion for LDTs could subject our product offerings to more significant regulatory requirements.

•If third-party payers, including commercial payers and government healthcare programs, do not provide coverage of, or adequate reimbursement for, our tests, our business and results of operations will be negatively affected.

•Our billing and claim processing are complex and time-consuming, and any delay in submitting claims or failure to comply with applicable billing requirements could hinder collection and have an adverse effect on our revenue.

•If we are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient intellectual property protection for our technology, or if the scope of the intellectual property protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our products may be impaired.

•Issued patents covering our products could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged.

•The price of our common stock has fluctuated substantially and may do so in the future, and you may not be able to resell shares of our common stock at or above the price at which you purchased them.

•Our indebtedness could expose us to risks that could adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations or result in dilution to our stockholders.

•The COVID-19 global pandemic and the worldwide attempts to contain it could harm our business and our results of operations have been and could continue to be adversely impacted by the pandemic.

Risk Factors

Our operations and financial results are subject to various risks and uncertainties including those described below. You should consider carefully the risks and uncertainties described below, in addition to other information contained in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, including our consolidated financial statements and related notes. The risks and uncertainties described below are not the only ones we face. Additional risks and uncertainties that we are unaware of, or that we currently believe are not material, may also become important factors that adversely affect our business. If any of the following risks or others not specified below materialize, our business, financial condition and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected. In that case, the trading price of our common stock could decline.

Risks related to our business and strategy

We have incurred significant losses since inception, we may continue to incur losses in the future and we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to achieve and maintain profitability.

We have incurred significant losses since our inception. For the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, we incurred net losses of $246.3 million, $67.9 million and $84.3 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2020, we had an accumulated deficit of $606.6 million. To date, we have financed our operations principally from the sale of stock or convertible securities, and revenue from precision oncology testing and our development services. We have devoted substantially all of our resources to the development and commercialization of our current products and to research and development activities related to our future products, including clinical and regulatory initiatives to obtain marketing approval and sales and marketing activities. We will need to generate substantial revenue to achieve and then sustain profitability, and even if we achieve profitability, we cannot be sure that we will remain profitable for any period of time. Our failure to achieve or maintain profitability could negatively impact the value of our common stock.

We may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to achieve and maintain profitability and our current or future products may not achieve or maintain sufficient commercial market acceptance.

We are currently not profitable. Even if we succeed in increasing adoption of our existing products and services by physicians, obtaining additional coverage decisions from commercial and government payers, maintaining and creating relationships with our existing and new biopharmaceutical partners, and developing and commercializing additional products and services, we may not be able to generate sufficient revenue to achieve or maintain profitability.

We believe our commercial success is dependent upon our ability to continue to successfully market and sell our current products, including our Guardant360, Guardant360 CDx, and GuardantOMNI tests, and our future products, to continue to expand our current relationships and develop new relationships with clinicians and biopharmaceutical customers and to develop and commercialize new products based on our Guardant Health Oncology Platform. Our ability to achieve and maintain sufficient commercial market acceptance of our existing and future products will depend on a number of factors, including:

•our ability to increase awareness of our tests and the benefits of liquid biopsy;

•the rate of adoption and/or endorsement of our tests by clinicians, KOLs, advocacy groups and biopharmaceutical companies;

•the timing and scope of any approval by regulatory agencies, including the FDA for our tests;

•our ability to obtain positive coverage decisions for our tests from additional commercial payers and to broaden the scope of indications included in such coverage decisions;

•our ability to obtain reimbursement and expanded coverage from government payers, including Medicare;

•the impact of our investments in product innovation and commercial growth;

•negative publicity regarding ours or our competitors’ products resulting from defects or errors; and

•our ability to further validate our technology through clinical research and accompanying publications.

We cannot assure that we will be successful in addressing each of these criteria or other criteria that might affect the market acceptance of our products. If we are unsuccessful in achieving and maintaining market acceptance of our products, our business and results of operations will suffer.

Our operating results may fluctuate significantly, which makes our future operating results difficult to predict and could cause our operating results to fall below expectations or any guidance we may provide.

Our quarterly and annual operating results may fluctuate significantly, which makes it difficult for us to predict our future operating results. These fluctuations may occur due to a variety of factors, many of which are outside of our control, including, but not limited to:

•the level of demand for any of our products, which may vary significantly;

•the timing and cost of, and level of investment in, research, development, regulatory approval and commercialization activities relating to our products, which may change from time to time;

•the volume and customer mix of our precision oncology testing;

•the start and completion of projects in which our development services are utilized;

•the introduction of new products or product enhancements by us or others in our industry;

•coverage and reimbursement policies with respect to our products and products that compete with our products;

•expenditures that we may incur to acquire, develop or commercialize additional products and technologies;

•changes in governmental regulations or in the status of our regulatory approvals or applications;

•future accounting pronouncements or changes in our accounting policies;

•developments or disruptions in the business and operations of our clinical, commercial and other partners;

•the impact of natural disasters, political and economic instability, including wars, terrorism, and political unrest, epidemics or pandemics, including the current outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), boycotts, curtailment of trade and other business restrictions; and

•general market conditions and other factors, including factors unrelated to our operating performance or the operating performance of our competitors.

Additionally, it is difficult to predict the amount we are able to collect for our tests from commercial payers. We receive reimbursement for our tests from several commercial payers for whom we are not a participating provider. Because we are not contracted with these payers, they determine the amount they are willing to reimburse us for tests. We have provided testing services to patients with many cancer types and indications, most of the time as a non-participating provider through 2020. When we have received payment as a non-participating provider, the amounts, on average, were significantly lower than for participating providers. Even when these payers have paid a claim, they may elect at any time to review previously paid claims for overpayment against these claims. In the event of an overpayment determination, the payer may offset the amount they determine they overpaid against amounts they owe us on current claims. We have limited leverage to dispute these retroactive adjustments and we cannot predict when, or how often, a payer might engage in these reviews. A significant amount of these offsets by one or more payers in any given quarter could have a material effect on our results of operations and cause them to fall below expectations or guidance we may provide. Our efforts to become a participating provider of a number of commercial payers may not be successful. Even when we have obtained positive coverage decisions for our tests from commercial payers and entered into agreements with them, such agreements typically are standard form contracts and may allow payers to terminate coverage on short notice, impose significant obligations on us and create additional regulatory and compliance hurdles for us.

As part of our reimbursement operations, we appeal denials from payers, and if successful, we receive payments from these appeals. However, due to the inherent variability of the insurance landscape, we cannot guarantee future success of, or any payments from, appeals of reimbursement denials by payers. Historic success and payments are not indicative of future success of and payments from such appeals.

Due to the inherent variability and unpredictability of the reimbursement landscape, including related to the amount that payers reimburse us for any of our tests, previously recorded revenue adjustments are not indicative of future revenue adjustments from actual cash collections, which may fluctuate significantly.

The cumulative effects of factors discussed above could result in large fluctuations and unpredictability in our quarterly and annual operating results. As a result, comparing our operating results on a period-to-period basis may not be meaningful. Investors should not rely on our past results as an indication of our future performance.

This variability and unpredictability could also result in our failing to meet the expectations of industry or financial analysts or investors for any period. If our revenue or operating results fall below the expectations of analysts or investors or below any guidance we may provide, or if the guidance we provide is below the expectations of analysts or investors, the price of our common stock could decline substantially. Such a stock price decline could occur even when we have met any previously publicly stated guidance we may provide.

New product development and commercialization involve a lengthy and complex process and we may be unable to develop or commercialize new products on a timely basis, or at all.

Products that are under development have taken time and considerable resources to develop, and we may not be able to complete the development and commercialization of the such products for clinical use on a timely basis, or at all. For example, there can be no assurance that we will be able to produce commercial products for early detection of cancer. Before we can commercialize any new products, we will need to expend significant funds in order to:

•conduct substantial research and development, including validation studies and clinical trials;

•further develop and scale our laboratory processes to accommodate different products; and

•further develop and scale our infrastructure to be able to analyze increasingly large amounts of data.

Our product development process involves a high degree of risk, and product development efforts may fail for many reasons, including:

•failure of the product to perform as expected, including defects and errors;

•lack of validation data; or

•failure to demonstrate the clinical utility of the product.

Our development plan involves using data and analytical insights generated from our current products as a force multiplier of returns on research and development investment in our future products. However, if we are unable to generate additional or compatible data and insights, then we may not be able to advance our products under development as quickly, or at all, or without significant additional investment.

As we develop products, we have made and will have to make significant investments in product development, marketing and selling resources, including investing heavily in clinical studies, which could adversely affect our future cash flows.

Our current revenue is primarily generated from sales of our tests and we are highly dependent on them for our success.

Our ability to execute our growth strategy and become profitable is highly dependent on the continued adoption and use of our tests, which accounted for almost all of our revenue in the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019. Continued adoption and use of our tests will depend on several factors, including the prices we charge for our tests, the scope of coverage and amount of reimbursement available from third-party payers for our tests, the availability of clinical data that supports the value of our tests and the inclusion of our tests in industry treatment guidelines. In addition, many biopharmaceutical companies have existing relationships with companies that develop molecular diagnostic tests, including our competitors, and may continue to use their tests instead of ours. Despite our business development efforts, it could be difficult, expensive and/or time-consuming for biopharmaceutical companies to switch diagnostic tests for their products, and our tests may not be widely accepted by biopharmaceutical companies, if at all, which could in turn hinder the growth of sales of our tests. If we are unable to achieve commercial success for our tests, our business, results of operations and financial condition would be materially and adversely affected. We cannot assure that our tests will continue to maintain or gain market acceptance, and any failure to do so would materially harm our business and results of operations.

If our products, or our competitors’ products, do not meet the expectations of patients and our customers, our operating results, reputation and business could suffer.

Our success depends on the market’s confidence that we can provide reliable, high-quality precision oncology products that will improve clinical outcomes, lower healthcare costs and enable better biopharmaceutical development. We believe that patients, clinicians and biopharmaceutical companies are likely to be particularly sensitive to product defects and errors in the use of our products, including if our products fail to detect genomic alterations with high accuracy from samples or if we fail to list or inaccurately include certain treatment options and available clinical trials in our test reports, and there can be no guarantee that our products will meet their expectations. Furthermore, if our competitors’ products do not perform to expectations, it may result in lower confidence in our tests as well. As a result, the failure of our products or our competitors’ products to perform as expected could significantly impair our operating results and our reputation. In addition, we may be subject to legal claims arising from any defects or errors in our products.

If we are unable to support demand for our current and future products, including ensuring that we have adequate capacity to meet increased demand, or we are unable to successfully manage our anticipated growth, our business could suffer.

As our volume of test sales grows, we will need to continue to increase our workflow capacity for sample intake, customer service, billing and general process improvements, expand our internal quality assurance program and extend our platform to support comprehensive genomic analysis at a larger scale within expected turnaround times. We will need additional certified laboratory scientists and other scientific and technical personnel to process higher volumes of our precision oncology products. Portions of our process are not automated and will require additional personnel to scale. We will also need to purchase additional equipment, some of which can take several months or more to procure, setup and validate, and increase our software and computing capacity to meet increased demand. There is no assurance that any of these increases in scale, expansion of personnel, equipment, software and computing capacities or process enhancements will be successfully implemented, if at all, or that we will have adequate space in our laboratory facility or be able to secure additional facility space to accommodate such required expansion.

As we commercialize additional products, we will need to incorporate new equipment, implement new technology systems and laboratory processes, and hire new personnel with different qualifications. Failure to manage this growth or transition could result in turnaround time delays, higher product costs, declining product quality, deteriorating customer service and slower responses to competitive challenges. A failure in any one of these areas could make it difficult for us to meet market expectations for our products and could damage our reputation and the prospects for our business.

If we cannot maintain our current relationships, or enter into new relationships, with biopharmaceutical companies, our revenue prospects could be reduced.

Biopharmaceutical customers collaborate with us for analysis of whole blood or plasma samples for multiple applications primarily to support clinical trials, including patient identification, companion diagnostics and retrospective testing. In the years ended December 31, 2020, 2019 and 2018, revenue from our top five biopharmaceutical customers, including their affiliated entities, accounted for 27%, 14% and 36% of our total revenue, respectively. The revenue attributable to our biopharmaceutical customers may also fluctuate in the future, which could have an adverse effect on our financial condition and results of operations. In addition, the termination of these relationships could result in a temporary or permanent loss of revenue. Adverse speculation about our existing or potential relationships with biopharmaceutical companies may be a catalyst for adverse speculation about us, our products and our technology, which can adversely affect our reputation and business.

Our future success depends in part on our ability to maintain relationships and to enter into new relationships with biopharmaceutical customers, including offering our platform to such customers for companion diagnostic development, novel target discovery and validation as well as clinical trial enrollment, and growing into other business opportunities. This can be difficult due to many factors, including the type of biomarker support required and our ability to deliver it and our biopharmaceutical customers’ satisfaction with our products or services, internal and external constraints placed on these organizations and other factors that may be beyond our control. Furthermore, our biopharmaceutical customers may decide to decrease or discontinue their use of our current products and tests, or our future products due to changes in their research and product development plans, failures in their clinical trials, financial constraints, or utilization of internal testing resources or tests performed by other parties, or other circumstances outside of our control. Continued usage of our tests by particular biopharmaceutical customers may also depend on whether the partner obtains positive data in its clinical trials, is able to successfully obtain regulatory approval and subsequently commercializes a therapy for which we have partnered with them to develop a companion diagnostic, or other administrative factors that are outside our control. Some of our biopharmaceutical customers have contracted with us to provide testing for large numbers of samples, which could strain our testing capacity and restrict our ability to perform tests for other customers. Furthermore, biopharmaceutical companies may decline to do business with us or decrease or discontinue their use of our tests due to their broad strategic collaboration with any of our competitors. In addition to reducing our revenue, the loss of one or more of these relationships may reduce our exposure to research and clinical trials that facilitate the collection and incorporation of new information into our platform and tests. We engage in conversations with biopharmaceutical companies regarding potential commercial opportunities on an ongoing basis. There is no assurance that any of these conversations will result in a commercial agreement, that the resulting relationship will be successful, or that clinical trials conducted as part of the engagement will produce successful outcomes. If we cannot maintain our current relationships, or enter into new relationships, with biopharmaceutical companies, our product development could be delayed and revenue and results of operations could be adversely affected.

Our payer concentration may materially adversely affect our financial condition and results of operations.

We receive a substantial portion of our revenue from a limited number of third-party commercial payers, most of which have not contracted with us to be a participating provider. If one or more of these payers were to significantly reduce, or cease to pay, the amount such payer reimburses us for tests we perform, or if such payer does not reach or maintain favorable coverage and reimbursement decisions for our tests, it could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. We have experienced situations where commercial payers proactively reduced the amounts they were willing to reimburse for our tests, and in other situations, commercial payers have determined that the amounts they previously paid were too high and have sought to recover those perceived excess payments by deducting such amounts from payments otherwise being made. If commercial payers were to decide not to include us as a participating provider, cease paying us altogether, drastically reduce the amount they were willing to pay us or attempt to recover any amounts they had already paid, it could cause significant fluctuations in our quarterly results and could harm our business and results of operations.

In September 2018, we began to receive reimbursement from Medicare for claims submitted with respect to Guardant360 clinical tests performed for NSCLC patients. In March 2020, we began to receive reimbursement from Medicare for claims submitted with respect to Guardant360 clinical tests performed for qualifying patients diagnosed with solid tumor cancers of non-central nervous system origin other than NSCLC. Approximately 37%, 38% and 38% of our U.S. clinical tests were for Medicare beneficiaries in each of the years 2020, 2019 and 2018 respectively. Revenue attributable to Medicare accounted for more than 10% of our total revenue in each of the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019. In addition, pursuant to CMS regulations, we cannot bill Medicare directly for tests provided for Medicare beneficiaries in some situations. CMS adopted an exception to its laboratory date of service regulation, and if certain conditions are met, molecular testing laboratories such as us can rely on that exception to bill Medicare directly, instead of seeking payment from the hospital. If this exception is repealed or curtailed by CMS, or its laboratory date of service regulation is otherwise changed to adversely impact our ability to bill Medicare directly, our revenue could be materially reduced.

If we fail to obtain or maintain coverage and adequate reimbursement from third-party payers, we may be unable to increase our testing volume and revenue as expected. Retrospective reimbursement adjustments, such as deductions from further payments and clawbacks, can also negatively impact our revenue and cause our financial results to fluctuate. In addition, as part of our reimbursement operations, we appeal denials from payers, and if successful, we receive payments from these appeals. However, due to the inherent variability of the insurance landscape, we cannot guarantee future success of, or any payments from, appeals of reimbursement denials by payers. Historic success and payments are not indicative of future success of and payments from such appeals.

If we cannot compete successfully with our competitors, we may be unable to increase or sustain our revenue or to achieve and then sustain profitability.

Growing understanding of the importance of biomarkers linked with therapy selection and response is leading to more companies offering services in genomic profiling. The promise of liquid biopsy is also leading to more companies attempting to enter the space and compete with us. Over the last year, that has included new and accelerated development programs by a number of potential competitors, and increasing levels of merger and acquisition activity by both existing and new competitors. Currently, our main competition is from diagnostic companies with products and services to profile genes in cancers based on either single-marker or comprehensive genomic profile testing, based on next-generation sequencing in either blood or tissue. This may change over the next few years as a result of new competitors entering through investment and acquisition activity.

Our competitors within the liquid biopsy space include Foundation Medicine, Inc., which was acquired by Roche Holdings, Inc. in July 2018, Roche Molecular Systems, Inc., Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc., Illumina, Inc., Qiagen N.V. Invitae Corporation, and Sysmex Inostics. In addition, GRAIL, Inc., Natera Inc., Exact Sciences Corp., and Freenome Holdings, Inc. among others, are developing and/or commercializing tests that are competitive with our LUNAR program for early cancer detection.

Competitors within the broader genomics profiling space based on tissue include laboratory companies such as Bio-Reference Laboratories, Inc., Laboratory Corporation of America and Quest Diagnostics, Inc., as well as companies such as Foundation Medicine, Inc., Caris Life Sciences, Inc. and Myriad Genetics, Inc., that sell molecular diagnostic tests for cancer to physicians and have or may develop tests which compete with our tests. In addition, we are aware that certain of our customers are also developing their own tests and may decide to enter our market or otherwise stop using our tests.

Some of our competitors and potential competitors may have longer operating histories; larger customer bases; greater brand recognition and market penetration; substantially greater financial, technological and research and development resources and selling and marketing capabilities; and more experience dealing with third-party payers. As a result, they may be able to respond more quickly to changes in customer requirements, devote greater resources to the development, promotion and sale of their tests than we do or sell their tests at prices designed to win significant levels of market share. We may not be able to compete effectively against these organizations. Increased competition and cost-saving initiatives on the part of governmental entities and other third-party payers are likely to result in pricing pressures, which could harm our sales, profitability or ability to gain market share. In addition, competitors may be acquired by, receive investments from or enter into other commercial relationships with larger, well-established and well-financed companies. Certain of our competitors may be able to secure key inputs from vendors on more favorable terms, devote greater resources to marketing and promotional campaigns, adopt more aggressive pricing policies and devote substantially more resources to product development than we can. In addition, companies or governments that control access to genetic testing through umbrella contracts or regional preferences could promote our competitors or prevent us from performing certain services. If we are unable to compete successfully against current and future competitors, we may be unable to increase market acceptance and sales of our tests, which could prevent us from increasing our revenue or achieving profitability and could cause our stock price to decline.

In addition to developing kits, certain diagnostic companies also provide next-generation sequencing platforms that could be used for liquid biopsy testing. These include Illumina, Inc., Thermo Fisher Scientific Inc. and other companies developing next-generation sequencing platforms that are sold directly to biopharmaceutical companies, clinical laboratories and research centers. While many of the applications for these platforms are focused on research and development applications, each of these companies has launched and will continue to commercialize products and services focused on the clinical oncology market. These tests could include FDA-approved diagnostic kits, which can be sold to the clients who have purchased their platforms.

Furthermore, many companies are developing information technology-based tools to support the integration of next-generation sequencing testing into the clinical setting. These companies may also use their own tests or others to develop an integrated system which could limit access for us to certain networks.

The sizes of the markets for our current and future products have not been established with precision, and may be smaller than we estimate.

Our estimates of the annual total addressable markets for our current products and products under development are based on a number of internal and third-party estimates, including, without limitation, the number of patients with late-stage, solid tumor cancer, the number of individuals who are at a higher risk for developing cancer, and the assumed prices at which we can sell tests for markets that have not been established. While we believe our assumptions and the data underlying our estimates are reasonable, these assumptions and estimates may not be correct and the conditions supporting our assumptions or estimates may change at any time, thereby reducing the predictive accuracy of these underlying factors. As a result, our estimates of the annual total addressable market for our current or future products may prove to be incorrect. If the actual number of patients who would benefit from our products, the price at which we can sell our products, or the annual total addressable market for our products is smaller than we have estimated, it may impair our sales growth and have an adverse impact on our business.

The precision oncology industry is subject to rapid change, which could make our Guardant Health Oncology Platform, our current products and any future products we may develop, obsolete.

Our industry is characterized by rapid changes, including technological and scientific breakthroughs, frequent new product introductions and enhancements and evolving industry standards, all of which could make our current and future products obsolete. Our future success will depend on our ability to keep pace with the evolving needs of our customers on a timely and cost-effective basis and to pursue new market opportunities that develop as a result of scientific and technological advances. In recent years, there have been numerous advances in technologies relating to the diagnosis and treatment of cancer. There have also been advances in methods used to analyze very large amounts of molecular information. We must continuously enhance our Guardant Health Oncology Platform and develop new products to keep pace with evolving standards of care. If we do not update our product offerings to reflect new scientific knowledge about cancer biology, information about new cancer therapies or relevant clinical trials, our products could become obsolete and sales of our current products and any new products we may develop could decline or fail to grow as expected.

We may be unable to manage our future growth effectively, which could make it difficult to execute our business strategy.

Since our inception, we have experienced rapid growth and anticipate further growth in our business operations. Our future growth could create strain on our organizational, administrative and operational infrastructure, including laboratory operations, quality control, customer service and sales organization management. We expect to continue to increase headcount and to hire more specialized personnel as we grow our business. We will need to continue to hire, train and manage additional qualified scientists, laboratory personnel, client and account services personnel, as well as sales and marketing staff, and improve and maintain our technology to properly manage our growth. If our new hires perform poorly, if we are unsuccessful in hiring, training, managing and integrating these new employees or if we are not successful in retaining our existing employees, our business may be harmed.

In addition, we may not be able to maintain the quality or expected turnaround times of our products, or satisfy customer demand as it grows, and our business may be harmed. Our ability to manage our growth properly will also require us to continue to improve our operational, financial and management controls, as well as our reporting systems and procedures. The time and resources required to implement these new systems and procedures is uncertain and could be demanding, and failure to complete this in a timely and efficient manner could adversely affect our operations.

We may not be able to successfully market, sell or distribute our products, and if we are unable to expand our sales organization to adequately address our customers’ needs, our business may be adversely affected.

We may not be able to market, sell or distribute our products and tests, and other products we may develop effectively enough to support our planned growth. We currently sell to clinicians in the United States through our own sales organization and to biopharmaceutical companies through our business development team.

Each of our target markets is large, distinctive and diverse. As a result, we believe it is necessary for our sales representatives and business development managers to have established oncology-focused expertise. Competition for such employees within the precision oncology industry is intense. We may not be able to attract and retain personnel or be able to build an efficient and effective sales organization or business development team, which could negatively impact sales and market acceptance of our products and limit our revenue growth and potential profitability.

Our expected future growth will impose significant added responsibilities on members of management, including the need to identify, recruit, maintain and integrate additional employees. Our future financial performance and our ability to commercialize our products, to increase our sales and to compete effectively will depend, in part, on our ability to manage this potential future growth effectively, without compromising quality.

Outside the United States, we established the Joint Venture with SoftBank for sales of our products throughout Asia, the Middle East and Africa. We share a measure of control of the Joint Venture, and if its sales and marketing efforts for our products in those regions are not successful, our business would be materially and adversely affected. In other territories, such as Europe, we sell our tests primarily through distributor relationships or direct contracts with hospitals. Locating, qualifying, engaging and maintaining relationships with distribution partners and hospitals with local industry experience and knowledge will be necessary to effectively market and sell our products outside the United States. We may not be successful in finding, attracting and retaining distribution partners or local hospitals, or we may not be able to enter into such arrangements on favorable terms. Sales practices utilized by any such parties that are locally acceptable may not comply with sales practices standards required under U.S. laws that apply to us, which could create additional compliance risk. If our international sales and marketing efforts are not successful, we may not achieve market acceptance for our products outside the United States, which would materially and adversely impact our business.

We rely on a limited number of suppliers or, in some cases, sole suppliers, for some of our laboratory instruments and materials and may not be able to find replacements or promptly transition to alternative suppliers.

We rely on a limited number of suppliers or, in some cases, sole suppliers, including Illumina Inc., or Illumina, for certain sequencers, reagents, blood tubes and other equipment, instruments and materials that we use in our laboratory operations. An interruption in our laboratory operations could occur if we encounter delays or difficulties in securing these laboratory equipment, instruments or materials, and if we cannot then obtain an acceptable substitute. Any such interruption could significantly and adversely affect our business, financial condition, results of operations and reputation. We rely on Illumina as the sole supplier of the sequencers and as the sole provider of maintenance and repair services for these sequencers. Any disruption in operations of Illumina or other sole or limited suppliers or termination or suspension of our relationships with them could materially and adversely impact our supply chain and laboratory operations of our precision oncology platform and thus our ability to conduct our business and generate revenue. These limited or sole suppliers could engage in diverse types of businesses, including selling products or providing services in competition with us, and there can be no assurance that we can continue to receive required equipment, instruments or materials from them.

We believe that there are only a limited number of other manufacturers that are capable of supplying and servicing the equipment and materials necessary for our laboratory operations, including sequencers and various associated reagents, and potentially replacing our current suppliers. The use of equipment or materials furnished by these replacement suppliers would require us to alter our laboratory operations. Transitioning to a new supplier would be time-consuming and expensive, may result in interruptions in our laboratory operations, could affect the performance specifications of our laboratory operations or could require that we revalidate our tests. There can be no assurance that we will be able to secure alternative equipment, reagents and other materials, bring such equipment, reagents and materials online, and revalidate our tests without experiencing interruptions in our workflow. In the case of an alternative supplier for Illumina, for example, there can be no assurance that replacement sequencers and various associated reagents will be available or will meet our quality control and performance requirements for our laboratory operations. If we should encounter delays or difficulties in securing, reconfiguring or integrating the equipment and reagents we require for our products or in revalidating our products, our business, financial condition, results of operations and reputation could be materially and adversely affected.

If our existing laboratory facility becomes damaged or inoperable or we are required to vacate our existing facility, our ability to perform our tests and pursue our research and development efforts may be jeopardized.

We currently derive the majority of our revenue from tests performed at a single laboratory facility located in Redwood City, California. Our facility and equipment could be harmed or rendered inoperable by natural or man-made disasters, including war, fire, earthquake, power loss, communications failure or terrorism, which may render it difficult or impossible for us to operate our Guardant Health Oncology Platform for some period of time. The inability to perform our tests or to reduce the backlog that could develop if our facility is inoperable, for even a short period of time, may result in the loss of customers or harm to our reputation, and we may be unable to regain those customers or repair our reputation. Furthermore, our facility and the equipment we use to perform our research and development work could be unavailable or costly and time-consuming to repair or replace. It would be difficult, time-consuming and expensive to rebuild our facility, to locate and qualify a new facility or enable a third party to practice our proprietary technology, particularly in light of licensure and accreditation requirements. Even if we are able to find a third party with such qualifications to perform our tests, the parties may be unable to agree on commercially reasonable terms.

We carry insurance for damage to our property and disruption of our business, but this insurance may not cover all of the risks associated with damage or disruption to our facility and business, may not provide coverage in amounts sufficient to cover our potential losses and may not continue to be available to us on acceptable terms, if at all.

We are dependent on third parties for the collection of blood samples for our tests.

We rely on third-party phlebotomy providers, including physician offices, to collect blood samples for our tests. Our current third-party phlebotomy providers may refuse to continue to collect samples for us in the future, in particular if they have agreements or arrangements with one of our competitors to collect samples for their tests, or if the phlebotomy provider is owned or controlled by a laboratory that offers tests that compete with ours. There has been a trend towards consolidation of independent phlebotomy providers. Independent phlebotomy providers, once acquired by our competitors, may terminate their relationships with us. If our patients are unable to readily access a phlebotomy provider to collect a blood sample for our tests, we may be unable to compete effectively with other laboratories that have greater access to phlebotomy providers and our business, financial condition and results of operations may be harmed.

In addition, if third-party phlebotomy providers fail to adequately and properly obtain and collect viable blood samples from patients and to properly package and ship the samples to us, our patients and their physicians may experience problems and delays in receiving test results, which could lead to dissatisfaction with our tests, therefore harming our reputation and adversely affecting our business, financial condition and results of operations. Similarly, our contracts with physician owned phlebotomy providers to collect blood could be scrutinized under federal and state healthcare laws such as the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, or AKS, and the federal law prohibiting physician self-referral, or Stark Law, to the extent these services to us are deemed to provide a financial benefit to or relieve a financial burden for a potential referral source, or are subsequently found not to be for fair market value. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws and regulations, we may be subject to administrative, civil and criminal penalties, damages, fines, individual imprisonment, exclusion from participation in federal healthcare programs or from coverage of commercial payers, refunding of payments received by us, and curtailment or cessation of our operations, any of which could harm our reputation and adversely affect our business, financial condition and results of operations.

We rely on commercial courier delivery services to transport samples to our laboratory facility in a timely and cost-efficient manner and if these delivery services are disrupted, our business will be harmed.

Our business depends on our ability to deliver test results quickly and reliably to our customers. Blood samples are typically received within days from the United States and outside the United States for analysis at our Redwood City, California facility. Disruptions in delivery services to transport samples to that facility, whether due to labor disruptions, bad weather, natural disaster, terrorist acts or threats or for other reasons could adversely affect specimen integrity and our ability to process samples in a timely manner, delay our provision of test results to our customers, and ultimately our reputation and our business. In addition, if we are unable to continue to obtain expedited delivery services to transport samples to us on commercially reasonable terms, our operating results may be adversely affected.

We are exposed to risks associated with our joint venture with SoftBank, and may not realize the advantages we expect from it.

We have a 50% ownership interest in the Joint Venture, Guardant Health AMEA, Inc., we formed with SoftBank in May 2018 to accelerate the commercialization of our products in Asia, the Middle East and Africa, with a near-term focus on Japan. However, the Joint Venture may not be successful in the timeframe we expect, or at all.

Additionally, SoftBank shares a measure of control over the operations of the Joint Venture. As a result, our investment in our joint venture involves risks that are different from the risks involved in owning facilities and operations independently. These risks include the possibility that our joint venture or SoftBank has economic or business interests or goals that are or become inconsistent with our economic or business interests or goals; is in a position to take action contrary to our instructions, requests, policies or objectives; subjects us to unexpected liabilities; takes actions that reduce our return on investment; or takes actions that harm our reputation or restrict our ability to run our business.

The joint venture agreement between us and SoftBank includes a put-call arrangement with respect to the shares of the Joint Venture held by SoftBank and its affiliates. SoftBank will have a put right to cause us to purchase all shares of the Joint Venture held by SoftBank and its affiliates, and we will have a call right to purchase all such shares in the event of (i) certain material disagreements relating to the Joint Venture or its business that may seriously affect the ability of the Joint Venture to perform its obligations under the joint venture agreement or may otherwise seriously impair the ability of the Joint Venture to conduct its business in an effective matter, other than one relating to the Joint Venture’s business plan or to factual matters that may be capable of expert determination; (ii) the effectiveness of our initial public offering, a change in control, the seventh anniversary of the formation of the Joint Venture, or each subsequent anniversary of each of the foregoing events; or (iii) a material breach of the joint venture agreement by the other party that goes unremedied within 20 business days. Unless the shares of the Joint Venture are publicly traded and listed on a nationally recognized stock exchange, the purchase price per share of the Joint Venture in these situations will be determined by a third-party valuation firm on the assumption that the sale is on an arm’s-length basis on the date of the put or call notice. The third-party valuation firm may evaluate a range of factors and employ assumptions that are subjective in nature, which may result in the fair value of Softbank’s interest in the Joint Venture being determined to be materially different from what has been recorded in our consolidated financial statements, including those included elsewhere in this Annual Report on Form 10-K. We may pay the purchase price for those shares in cash (including in the form of a promissory note), in shares of our common stock, or in a combination thereof. In the event SoftBank exercises its put right, we will choose the form of consideration. In the event we exercise our call right, SoftBank will choose the form of consideration. If we are required or choose to purchase those shares from SoftBank, we could experience significant cash outflow, our other stockholders could see their holdings diluted, and our financial condition and the price of our common stock may be adversely affected.

International expansion of our business exposes us to business, regulatory, political, operational, financial, and economic risks associated with doing business outside of the United States.

We currently have limited international operations, but our business strategy incorporates potentially significant international expansion, including through the Joint Venture with SoftBank, which we formed to accelerate the commercialization of our products in Asia, the Middle East and Africa.

We plan to maintain distributor and partner relationships, to conduct physician and patient association outreach activities, to extend laboratory capabilities and to expand payer relationships, outside of the United States, both directly and through our joint venture. Doing business internationally involves a number of risks, including:

•multiple, conflicting and changing laws and regulations such as privacy regulations, tax laws, export and import restrictions, economic sanctions and embargoes, employment laws, regulatory requirements and other governmental approvals, permits and licenses;

•failure by us, our distributors, our local partners or the Joint Venture with SoftBank to obtain regulatory approvals for the use of our products in various countries;

•additional potentially blocking or relevant third-party patent or other intellectual property rights;

•complexities and difficulties in obtaining intellectual property protection and enforcing our intellectual property;

•difficulties in staffing and managing foreign operations;

•complexities associated with managing multiple payer reimbursement regimes, government payers, or patient self-pay systems;

•logistics and regulations associated with shipping blood samples, including infrastructure conditions and transportation delays;

•limits in our ability to penetrate international markets if we are not able to perform our tests locally;

•financial risks, such as longer payment cycles, difficulty collecting accounts receivable, the impact of local and regional financial crises on demand and payment for our products and exposure to foreign currency exchange rate fluctuations, currency controls and cash repatriation restrictions;

•natural disasters, political and economic instability, including wars, terrorism, and political unrest, boycotts, curtailment of trade and other business restrictions;

•public health or similar issues, such as epidemics or pandemics, including the current outbreak of novel coronavirus (2019-nCoV), for which the World Health Organization declared a global emergency on January 30, 2020, that could cause business disruption for the Joint Venture, including the Joint Venture’s offices in Japan and Singapore, and make it more difficult to sell our tests in the affected countries or regions, many of which are in the JV Territory, and

•regulatory and compliance risks that relate to maintaining accurate information and control over sales and distributors’ activities that may fall within the purview of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, or FCPA, its books and records provisions, or its anti-bribery provisions.

Any of these factors could significantly harm our future international expansion and operations and, consequently, our revenue and results of operations.

We could be adversely affected by violations of the FCPA and other anti-bribery laws.

We are subject to the FCPA, which prohibits companies and their intermediaries from making payments in violation of law to non-U.S. government officials for the purpose of obtaining or retaining business or securing any other improper advantage, as a result of our international customers that may order either directly from us or through the Joint Venture with SoftBank. Our reliance on independent distributors to sell our tests internationally demands a high degree of vigilance in maintaining our policy against participation in corrupt activity, because these distributors could be deemed to be our agents and we could be held responsible for their actions. Other U.S. companies in the medical device and biopharmaceutical field have faced criminal penalties under the FCPA for allowing their agents to deviate from appropriate practices in doing business with these individuals. We are also subject to similar anti-bribery laws in the jurisdictions in which we operate, including the United Kingdom’s Bribery Act of 2010, which also prohibits commercial bribery and makes it a crime for companies to fail to prevent bribery. These laws are complex and far-reaching in nature, and, as a result, we cannot assure that we would not be required in the future to alter one or more of our practices to be in compliance with these laws or any changes in these laws or the interpretation thereof. Any violations of these laws, or allegations of such violations, could disrupt our operations, involve significant management distraction, cause us to incur significant costs and expenses, including legal fees, and result in a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations. We could also suffer severe penalties, including criminal and civil penalties, disgorgement and other remedial measures.

Risks related to our highly regulated industry

We conduct business in a heavily regulated industry, and changes in regulations or violations of regulations may, directly or indirectly, reduce our revenue, adversely affect our results of operations and financial condition, and harm our business.

The clinical laboratory testing industry is highly regulated, and there can be no assurance that the regulatory environment in which we operate will not change significantly and adversely to us in the future. Areas of the regulatory environment that may affect our ability to conduct business include, without limitation:

•federal and state laws applicable to test ordering, documentation of tests ordered, billing practices and claims payment and/or regulatory agencies enforcing those laws and regulations;

•federal and state health care fraud and abuse laws;

•federal and state laboratory anti-mark-up laws;

•coverage and reimbursement levels by Medicare, Medicaid, other governmental payers and private insurers;

•restrictions on coverage of and reimbursement for tests;

Table of Contents

•federal and state laws governing laboratory testing, including CLIA, and state licensing laws;

•federal and state laws and enforcement policies governing the development, use and distribution of diagnostic medical devices, including laboratory developed tests, or LDTs;

•federal, state and local laws governing the handling and disposal of medical and hazardous waste;

•federal and state Occupational Safety and Health Administration rules and regulations;

•the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, and similar state data privacy and security laws; and

•consumer protection laws.

In particular, the laws and regulations governing the marketing of clinical laboratory tests are complex, and there are often no sufficient regulatory or judicial interpretations of these laws and regulations. For example, some of our clinical laboratory tests are actively regulated by the FDA pursuant to the medical device provisions of the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or FDCA. The FDA defines a medical device to include any instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, contrivance, implant, in vitro reagent or other similar or related article, including a component, part or accessory, intended for use in the diagnosis of disease or other conditions, or in the cure, mitigation, treatment or prevention of disease, in man or other animals. Our clinical laboratory tests are in vitro diagnostic products that are considered by the FDA to be medical devices. Among other things, pursuant to the FDCA and its implementing regulations, the FDA regulates the research, design, testing, manufacturing, safety, labeling, storage, recordkeeping, premarket clearance or approval, marketing and promotion and sales and distribution of medical devices in the United States to ensure that medical devices distributed domestically are safe and effective for their intended uses. In addition, the FDA regulates the import and export of medical devices. If we do not comply with these requirements or fail to adequately comply, our business may be harmed.

Certain of our tests are currently marketed as LDTs, and future changes in FDA enforcement discretion for LDTs could subject our operations to much more significant regulatory requirements.

The FDA has a policy of enforcement discretion with respect to LDTs whereby the FDA does not actively enforce its regulatory requirements for such tests. However, the FDA has stated its intention to modify its enforcement discretion policy with respect to LDTs. If there are changes in FDA policy, or if the FDA disagrees that we are marketing our tests as LDTs within the scope of its policy of enforcement discretion, we may become subject to extensive regulatory requirements and may be required to stop selling our existing tests or launching any other tests we may develop and to conduct additional clinical trials or take other actions prior to continuing to market our tests. This could significantly increase the costs and expenses of conducting, or otherwise harm, our business.

We market some of our other tests as LDTs. While we believe that we are in material compliance with applicable laws and regulations, we cannot assure that the FDA will agree with us.

On July 31, 2014, the FDA notified Congress of its intent to modify, its policy of enforcement discretion with respect to LDTs. On October 3, 2014, FDA issued two draft guidances, entitled “Framework for Regulatory Oversight of Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs),” or the Framework Guidance, and “FDA Notification and Medical Device Reporting for Laboratory Developed Tests (LDTs).” The Framework Guidance stated that the FDA intended to modify its policy of enforcement discretion with respect to LDTs in a risk-based manner consistent with the existing classification of medical devices. Thus, pursuant to the Framework Guidance, the FDA planned to begin to enforce its medical device requirements, including premarket submission requirements, on LDTs that have historically been marketed without FDA premarket review and oversight. The FDA could ultimately modify its current approach to LDTs in a way that would subject our products marketed as LDTs to the enforcement of regulatory requirements. If such changes to the regulatory framework occur, we could be subject to enforcement of regulatory requirements as a device manufacturer such as registration and listing requirements, medical device reporting requirements and the requirements of the FDA’s Quality System Regulation. Additionally, if the FDA begins to enforce its premarket submission regulations with respect to LDTs, we may be required to obtain premarket clearance or approval for our products we plan to commercialize as LDTs.

Table of Contents

There is no guarantee that the FDA will grant 510(k) clearance or a premarket approval of our products and failure to obtain necessary clearances or approvals for our products would adversely affect our ability to grow our business.

Before we begin to label and market our products for use as clinical diagnostics in the United States, including as companion diagnostics, we may be required to obtain either 510(k) clearance or a premarket approval, or supplemental premarket approval, or respectively, PMA or sPMA, from the FDA, unless an exemption applies or FDA exercises its enforcement discretion and refrains from enforcing its medical device requirements. For example, the FDA has a policy of refraining from enforcing such requirements with respect to LDTs, which the FDA considers to be a type of in vitro diagnostic test that is designed, manufactured and used within a single laboratory.

The process of obtaining a PMA is a rigorous, costly, lengthy and uncertain process. In the PMA process, the FDA must determine that a proposed device is safe and effective for its intended use based, in part, on extensive data, including, but not limited to, technical, pre-clinical, clinical trial, manufacturing and labeling data. In the 510(k) clearance process, the FDA must determine that a proposed device is “substantially equivalent” to a device legally on the market, known as a “predicate” device, in order to clear the proposed device for marketing. To be “substantially equivalent,” the proposed device must have the same intended use as the predicate device, and either have the same technological characteristics as the predicate device or have different technological characteristics and not raise different questions of safety or effectiveness than the predicate device. Clinical data is sometimes required to support a substantial equivalence determination.

Any delay or failure to obtain necessary regulatory approvals or clearances would have a material adverse effect on our business, prospects, financial condition and results of operations.

The FDA can delay, limit or deny clearance or approval of a device for many reasons, including:

•our inability to demonstrate to the satisfaction of the FDA that our products are safe or effective for their intended uses;

•the disagreement of the FDA with the design, conduct or implementation of our clinical trials or the analysis or interpretation of data from our pre-clinical studies or clinical trials;

•serious and unexpected adverse effects experienced by participants in our clinical trials;

•the data from our pre-clinical studies and clinical trials may be insufficient to support clearance or approval, where required;

•our inability to demonstrate that the clinical and other benefits of any of our tests outweigh the risks;

•an advisory committee, if convened by the FDA, may recommend against approval of our PMA or other application for any of our tests or may recommend that the FDA require, as a condition of approval, additional pre-clinical studies or clinical trials, limitations on approved labeling or distribution and use restrictions, or even if an advisory committee, if convened, makes a favorable recommendation, the FDA may still not approve the test;

•the FDA may identify deficiencies in our marketing application, and in our manufacturing processes, facilities or analytical methods or those of our third-party contract manufacturers;

•the potential for approval policies or regulations of the FDA to change significantly in a manner rendering our clinical data or regulatory filings insufficient for the clearance or approval; and

•the FDA may audit our clinical trial data and conclude that the data is not sufficiently reliable to support a PMA application.

If we are unable to obtain clearance or approval for any tests for which we plan to seek clearance or approval, our business may be harmed.

Table of Contents

Modifications to our FDA-cleared or approved products may require new 510(k) clearances or premarket approvals, or may require us to cease marketing or recall the modified products until clearances are obtained.

For any product approved pursuant to a PMA, we are required to seek supplemental approval for many types of changes to the approved product, for which we will need to determine whether a PMA supplement or other regulatory filing is needed or whether the change may be reported via the PMA Annual Report. Similarly, any modification to a 510(k)-cleared device that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a major change in its intended use, design, or manufacture, requires new 510(k) clearance or, possibly, approval of a new PMA. If the FDA requires us to seek approvals or clearances for modifications to our previously approved or cleared products, for which we concluded that new approvals or clearances are unnecessary, we may be required to cease marketing or distribution of our products or to recall the modified product until we obtain the approval or clearance, and we may be subject to significant regulatory fines or penalties.

If third-party payers, including commercial payers and government healthcare programs, do not provide coverage of, or adequate reimbursement for, our tests, our business and results of operations will be negatively affected.

Our revenue and commercial success depend on achieving coverage and reimbursement for our tests from payers, including both commercial and government payers. If payers do not provide coverage of, or do not provide adequate reimbursement for our tests, we may need to seek payment from the patient, which may adversely affect demand for our tests. Coverage determinations by a payer may depend on a number of factors, including but not limited to a payer’s determination that a test is appropriate, medically necessary or cost-effective. If we are unable to provide payers with sufficient evidence of the clinical utility and validity of our test, they may not provide coverage, may provide limited coverage or may terminate coverage, which will adversely affect our revenues and our financial condition. To the extent that more competitors enter our markets, the availability of coverage and the reimbursement rate for our tests may decrease as we encounter pricing pressure from our competitors.

Each payer makes its own decision as to whether to provide coverage for our tests, whether to enter into a contract with us and the reimbursement rate for a test. Negotiating with payers is time-consuming, and payers often insist on their standard form contracts. There is no guarantee that a payer will provide adequate coverage or reimbursement for our tests or that we can reach an agreement with the payer on reasonable terms without being subject to additional regulatory and compliance risks. In cases where there is no coverage, or we do not have a contracted rate for reimbursement with the payer, the patient is typically responsible for a greater share of the cost of the test, which may result in delay of revenue, increase collection costs or decrease the likelihood of collection. We maintain a financial assistance program, the Guardant Access Program, under which we assess patient financial need and offer provide discounted or no cost tests to certain patients. This may result in scrutiny by payers of our Guardant Access Program, and this could result in recoupment actions or termination of coverage of our tests.

Our claims for reimbursement may be denied and we may have to appeal such denials in order to get paid. Such appeals may not result in payment. Payers may perform audits of historically paid claims and attempt to recoup funds years after the funds were initially distributed if the payers believe the funds were paid in error or determine that our tests were medically unnecessary. If a payer's audit of our claims results in a negative finding, and we are unable to reverse the finding through appeal, any subsequent recoupment could result in a material adverse effect on our revenue. Additionally, in some cases commercial payers for whom we are not a participating provider may elect at any time to review claims previously paid and determine the amount they paid was excessive. In these situations, the payer typically notifies us of its decision and then offsets the amount it determines to be overpaid against amounts it owes us on current claims. We do not have a mechanism to dispute these retroactive adjustments, and we cannot predict when, or how often, a payer might engage in these reviews.

When we contract with a payer as a participating provider, reimbursements by the payer are generally made pursuant to a negotiated fee schedule and are limited to only covered indications or where prior approval has been obtained. Becoming a participating provider can result in higher reimbursement amounts for covered uses of our test and, potentially, no reimbursement for non-covered uses identified under the payer’s policies or the contract.

Although we are a participating provider with some commercial payers, certain other large, national commercial payers, including Anthem, Aetna and Humana, have issued non-coverage policies that consider tissue and liquid CGP testing, including our Guardant360 test, as experimental or investigational. If we are not successful in obtaining coverage from such payers, or if other payers issue similar non-coverage policies, our business and results of operations could be materially and adversely affected.

Table of Contents

Medicare’s National Coverage Determination, or NCD, for Next Generation Sequencing, or NGS, first established in 2018 and subsequently updated in 2020 states that NGS tests, such as our Guardant360 test, are covered by Medicare nationally, when: (1) performed in a CLIA-certified laboratory, (2) ordered by a treating physician, (3) the patient meets certain clinical and treatment criteria, including having recurrent, relapsed, refractory, metastatic, or advanced stages III or IV cancer, (4) the test is approved or cleared by the FDA as a companion in vitro diagnostic for an FDA approved or cleared indication for use in that patient’s cancer, and (5) results are provided to the treating physician for management of the patient using a report template to specify treatment options. The NGS NCD also states that each Medicare Administrative Contractor, or MAC, may provide local coverage of other next-generation sequencing tests for cancer patients only when the test is performed by a CLIA-certified laboratory, ordered by a treating physician and the patient meets the same clinical and treatment criteria required of nationally covered next-generation sequencing tests under the NGS NCD. An NGS test is not covered by Medicare when cancer patients do not have the above-noted indications for cancer under either national or local coverage criteria. In July 2018, Palmetto GBA, or Palmetto, the MAC responsible for administering Medicare’s Molecular Diagnostic Services Program, or MolDx, issued a local coverage determination, or LCD, for our Guardant360 test for non-small cell lung cancer, or NSCLC, patients who meet certain clinical and treatment criteria. Subsequently, in 2018, Noridian Healthcare Solutions, the MAC responsible for adjudicating claims in California, where our laboratory is located, and a participant in MolDx, finalized its LCD for our Guardant360 test. In September 2018, we began to receive reimbursement from Medicare for claims submitted with respect to Guardant360 clinical tests performed for NSCLC patients. In December 2019, replacing its prior NSCLC patient LCD, Palmetto GBA finalized its expanded LCD for our Guardant360 test that provides limited Medicare coverage for use of the Guardant360 test for qualifying patients diagnosed with solid cancers of non-central nervous system origin. In May 2019, Noridian also issued an expanded draft LCD for our Guardant360 test consistent with the expanded draft LCD issued by Palmetto in March 2019. In May 2020, Noridian issued a coverage article and confirmed limited Medicare coverage for our Guardant360 test for qualifying patients diagnosed with solid tumor cancers of non-central nervous system origin who meet the criteria of the NGS NCD. Noridian also retired the expanded draft LCD issued in May 2019 as being superseded by the coverage article. Future actions taken by Noridian or Palmetto may change Medicare coverage for our Guardant360 test. In March 2020, we began to receive reimbursement from Medicare for claims submitted, with respect to Guardant360 clinical tests performed for qualifying patients diagnosed with solid tumor cancers of non-central nervous system origin other than NSCLC.

Under Medicare, payment for laboratory tests like ours is generally made under the Clinical Laboratory Fee Schedule, or CLFS, with payment amounts assigned to specific procedure billing codes. In April 2014, Congress passed the Protecting Access to Medicare Act of 2014, or PAMA, which included substantial changes to the way in which clinical laboratory services are paid under Medicare. Under PAMA, laboratories that receive the majority of their Medicare revenue from payments made under the CLFS are generally required to report to CMS, beginning in 2017 and every three years thereafter (or annually for “advanced diagnostic laboratory tests”), private payer payment rates and volumes for each test they perform. CMS uses this data to calculate a weighted median payment rate for each test, which is used to establish revised Medicare CLFS reimbursement rates for the test. Laboratories that fail to report the required payment information may be subject to substantial civil monetary penalties. As we have begun billing Medicare for our tests, we are subject to reporting requirements under PAMA and the Medicare rate for our tests will be calculated in the future based on our private payer rates. For clinical diagnostic laboratory tests furnished on or after January 1, 2018, their Medicare CLFS reimbursement rates are established upon these reported private payer rates. If we are unable to obtain and maintain favorable reimbursement rates from commercial payers for our tests, this may adversely affect the tests’ Medicare reimbursement rates. We believe that our tests do not meet the current definition of advanced diagnostic laboratory tests, and we will be required to report private payer rates for our tests every three years; but this determination may change. It is unclear what impact new Medicare pricing structures, such as those adopted under PAMA, may have on our business, financial condition, results of operations or cash flows.

Some payers have implemented, or are in the process of implementing, laboratory benefit management programs, often using third-party benefit managers to manage these programs. The stated goals of these programs are to help improve the quality of outpatient laboratory services, support evidence-based guidelines for patient care and lower costs. The impact on laboratories, such as us, of active laboratory benefit management by third parties is unclear, and we expect that it would have a negative impact on our revenue in the short term. Payers may resist reimbursement for our tests in favor of less expensive tests, require pre-authorization for our tests, or impose additional pricing pressure on and substantial administrative burden for reimbursement for our tests. We expect to continue to focus substantial resources on increasing adoption of, and coverage and reimbursement for, our current tests and any future tests we may develop. We believe it may take several years to achieve broad coverage and adequate contracted reimbursement with a majority of payers for our tests. However, we cannot predict whether, under what circumstances, or at what price levels payers will cover and reimburse our tests. If we fail to establish

Table of Contents

and maintain broad adoption of, and coverage and reimbursement for, our tests, our ability to generate revenue could be harmed and our business and prospects could suffer.

Our products may in the future be subject to product recalls. A recall of our products, either voluntarily or at the direction of the FDA or another governmental authority, or the discovery of serious safety issues with our products, could have a significant adverse impact on us.

The FDA has the authority to require the recall of commercialized products that are subject to FDA regulation in the event of material deficiencies or defects in design or manufacture. We may also, on our own initiative, recall a product. The FDA requires that certain classifications of recalls be reported to the FDA within ten working days after the recall is initiated. In the case of our FDA-approved tests, a government-mandated or voluntary recall by us or one of our distributors could occur as a result of an unacceptable risk to health, component failures, malfunctions, manufacturing errors, design or labeling defects or other deficiencies and issues. Recalls of any of our products could impair our ability to produce our products in a cost-effective and timely manner, which would have an adverse effect on our reputation, results of operations and financial condition. We may be subject to liability claims, may be required to bear costs or may take other actions that may have a negative impact on our future sales and our ability to generate profits. We may initiate voluntary recalls involving our products in the future that we determine do not require notification to the FDA. If the FDA disagrees with our determinations, the FDA could require us to report those actions and take enforcement action for failing to report the recalls when they were conducted. A future recall announcement could harm our reputation with customers and negatively affect our sales and financial condition.

If we initiate a correction or removal for one of our tests, issue a safety alert or undertake a field action or recall to reduce a risk to health imposed by the test, this could lead to increased scrutiny by the FDA and our customers regarding the quality and safety of our tests and to negative publicity, including FDA alerts, press releases or administrative or judicial actions. Furthermore, circulation of any such negative publicity could harm our reputation, be used by competitors against us in competitive situations and cause customers to delay purchase decisions or cancel orders.

Clinical development involves a lengthy and expensive process with an uncertain outcome, and results of earlier studies and trials may not be predictive of future trial results.

Our ongoing research and development and clinical trial activities are subject to extensive regulation and review by numerous governmental authorities both in the United States and abroad. We are currently conducting pre-and post-market clinical studies of some of our tests. The commencement of clinical trials may be delayed due to insufficient patient enrollment, which is a function of many factors, including the size of the patient population, the nature of the protocol, the proximity of patients to clinical sites and the trial eligibility criteria. Clinical studies may need to be conducted in compliance with FDA regulations or the FDA may take enforcement action. We cannot be certain that results from our clinical trials will support our marketing claims or that the FDA or foreign authorities will agree with our conclusions regarding them. Success in pre-clinical studies and early clinical trials does not ensure that later clinical trials will be successful, and we cannot be sure that the later trials will replicate the results of prior trials and studies. The clinical trial process may fail to demonstrate that our tests are safe and effective for the proposed indicated uses, which could cause us to abandon or delay development of our tests. Any delay or termination of our clinical trials will delay the filing of our marketing applications.

We may find it necessary to engage contract research organizations to perform data collection and analysis and other aspects of our clinical trials, which might increase the cost and complexity of our trials. We may also depend on clinical investigators, medical institutions and contract research organizations to perform the trials, and would control only certain aspects of their activities. We would be responsible for ensuring that each of our trials is conducted in accordance with the applicable protocol, legal, regulatory and scientific standards, and our reliance on third parties would not relieve us of our regulatory responsibilities. We and our third-party contractors are required to comply with good clinical practices, or GCPs, which are regulations and guidelines enforced by the FDA, and comparable regulations enforced by foreign regulatory authorities for products in clinical development. Regulatory authorities enforce these GCPs through periodic inspections of trial sponsors, principal investigators and trial sites. If we or any third-party contractor fails to comply with applicable GCPs, the clinical data generated in clinical trials may be deemed unreliable and the FDA or comparable foreign regulatory authorities may require us to perform additional clinical trials before clearing or approving our marketing applications. A failure to comply with these regulations may require us to repeat clinical trials, which would delay the regulatory clearance or approval process.

If there are delays in testing or clearances or approvals as a result of the failure to perform by third parties, our research and development costs would increase, and we may not be able to obtain regulatory clearance or approval

Table of Contents

for our tests. In addition, we may not be able to establish or maintain relationships with these parties on favorable terms, if at all. Each of these outcomes would harm our ability to market our tests, generate revenue or to achieve sustained profitability.

Our “research use only” and “investigational use only” products could become subject to more onerous regulation by the FDA or other regulatory agencies in the future, which could increase our costs and delay our commercialization efforts, thereby materially and adversely affecting our business and results of operations.

In the United States, some of our products are currently available for research use only, or RUO, or for investigational use only, or IUO, depending on the proposed application. We make our RUO and IUO products available to a variety of parties, including biopharmaceutical companies and research institutes. Because RUO and IUO products are not intended for use in clinical practice and cannot be advertised or promoted for clinical or diagnostic claims, they are exempt from many regulatory requirements otherwise applicable to medical devices. In particular, while the FDA regulations require that RUO products be labeled “For Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures,” and that IUO products be labeled “For Investigational Use Only. The performance characteristics of this product have not been established,” such products are not subject to the FDA’s pre- and post-market controls for medical devices.

A significant change in the laws governing RUO or IUO products or how they are enforced may require us to change our business model in order to maintain compliance. For instance, in November 2013 the FDA issued a guidance document entitled “Distribution of In Vitro Diagnostic Products Labeled for Research Use Only or Investigational Use Only,” or the RUO/IUO Guidance, which highlights the FDA’s interpretation that distribution of RUO or IUO products with any labeling, advertising or promotion that suggests that clinical laboratories can validate the test through their own procedures and subsequently offer it for clinical diagnostic use as an LDT is in conflict with the RUO or IUO status. The RUO/IUO Guidance further articulates the FDA’s position that any assistance offered in performing clinical validation or verification, or similar specialized technical support, to clinical laboratories, is in conflict with RUO or IUO status. If we engage in any activities that the FDA deems to be in conflict with the RUO or IUO status held by any of our products so labeled, we may be subject to immediate, severe and broad FDA enforcement action that would adversely affect our ability to continue operations. Accordingly, if the FDA finds that we are distributing our RUO or IUO products in a manner that is inconsistent with its RUO/IUO Guidance, we may be forced to stop distribution of our RUO/IUO tests until we are in compliance, which would reduce our revenue, increase our costs and adversely affect our business, and results of operations.

Even if we receive regulatory approval of our products, we will continue to be subject to extensive regulatory oversight.

Medical devices are subject to extensive regulation by the FDA in the United States, the MHLW in Japan, the European Commission, EEA Competent Authorities, and comparable regulatory agencies in other territories where we do business. If any of our products are approved by the FDA, the MHLW, the European Commission, EEA Competent Authorities, or other comparable foreign regulatory agencies, we will be required to timely file various reports. If these reports are not filed timely, regulators may impose sanctions and sales of our products may suffer, and we may be subject to product liability or regulatory enforcement actions, all of which could harm our business. In addition, as a condition of approving a PMA application, the FDA may also require some form of post-approval study or post-market surveillance, whereby the applicant conducts a follow-up study or follows certain patient groups for a number of years and makes periodic reports to the FDA on the clinical status of those patients when necessary to protect the public health or to provide additional safety and effectiveness data for the device. The product labeling must be updated and submitted in a PMA supplement as results, including any adverse event data from the post-approval study, become available. Failure to conduct or timely complete post-approval studies in compliance with applicable regulations, update the product labeling, or comply with other post-approval requirements could result in withdrawal of approval of the PMA, which would harm our business and revenue.

The FDA and the Federal Trade Commission, or FTC, also regulate the advertising and promotion of medical devices to ensure that their promotional claims made are consistent with the applicable marketing authorizations, that there are adequate and reasonable data to substantiate the claims, and that the promotional labeling and advertising is neither false nor misleading in any respect. If the FDA or FTC determines that any of our promotional claims are false, misleading, not substantiated or not permissible, we may be subject to enforcement actions and we may be required to revise our promotional claims and make other corrections or restitutions.

Table of Contents

The FDA, state and foreign authorities have broad enforcement powers. Our failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements could result in enforcement action by the FDA, state or foreign regulatory agencies, which may include any of the following sanctions:

•adverse publicity, warning letters, untitled letters, fines, injunctions, consent decrees and civil penalties;

•repair, replacement, refunds, recalls, termination of distribution, administrative detention or seizures of our products;

•operating restrictions, partial suspension or total shutdown of production;

•customer notifications or repair, replacement or refunds;

•refusing our requests for clearances or approvals of new products, new intended uses or modifications to existing products;

•withdrawals of current clearances or approvals, resulting in prohibitions on sales of our products;

•refusal to issue certificates needed to export products for sale in other countries; and

•criminal prosecution.

Any of these sanctions could also result in higher than anticipated costs or lower than anticipated sales of our products and have a material adverse effect on our reputation, business, results of operations and financial condition.

In addition, the FDA may change its clearance and approval policies, adopt additional regulations or revise existing regulations, or take other actions which may prevent or delay approval or clearance of our current or future products under development. For example, in November 2018, FDA officials announced forthcoming steps that the FDA intends to take to modernize the premarket notification pathway under Section 510(k) of the FDCA.

Among other things, the FDA announced that it planned to develop proposals to drive manufacturers utilizing the 510(k) pathway toward the use of newer predicates. These proposals included plans to potentially sunset certain older devices that were used as predicates under the 510(k) clearance pathway, and to potentially publish a list of devices that have been cleared on the basis of demonstrated substantial equivalence to predicate devices that are more than 10 years old. In May 2019, the FDA solicited public feedback on these proposals. The FDA requested public feedback on whether it should consider certain actions that might require new authority, such as whether to sunset certain older devices that were used as predicates under the 510(k) clearance pathway. These proposals have not yet been finalized or adopted, and the FDA may work with Congress to implement such proposals through legislation. Accordingly, it is unclear the extent to which any proposals, if adopted, could impose additional regulatory requirements on us that could delay our ability to obtain new 510(k) clearances, increase the costs of compliance, or restrict our ability to maintain our current clearances, or otherwise create competition that may negatively affect our business.

The FDA may establish performance criteria for classes of devices for which we or our competitors seek or currently have received clearance, and it is unclear the extent to which such performance standards, if established, could impact our ability to obtain new 510(k) clearances or otherwise create competition that may negatively affect our business.

Any new statutes, regulations or revisions or reinterpretations of existing regulations may impose additional costs or lengthen review times of our current or future products or make it more difficult to obtain clearance or approval for, manufacture, market or distribute our products.

The FDA’s and other regulatory authorities’ policies may change and additional government regulations may be promulgated that could prevent, limit or delay regulatory clearance or approval of our product candidates.

We also cannot predict the likelihood, nature or extent of government regulation that may arise from future legislation or administrative or executive action, either in the United States or abroad.

Table of Contents

Failure to comply with federal, state and foreign laboratory licensing requirements and the applicable requirements of the FDA or any other regulatory authority, could cause us to lose the ability to perform our tests, experience disruptions to our business, or become subject to administrative or judicial sanctions.

We are subject to the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments, or CLIA, a federal law that regulates clinical laboratories that perform testing on specimens derived from humans for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of disease. CLIA regulations establish specific standards with respect to personnel qualifications, facility administration, proficiency testing, quality control, quality assurance and inspections. Any testing subject to CLIA regulation must be performed in a CLIA certified laboratory. CLIA certification is also required in order for us to be eligible to bill state and federal healthcare programs, as well as commercial payers, for our tests. We have a current CLIA certificate to perform our tests at our laboratory in Redwood City, California. To maintain this certificate, we are subject to survey and inspection every two years. Moreover, CLIA inspectors may make random inspections of our laboratory from time to time.

We are also required to maintain a California clinical laboratory license to perform testing in California. California laboratory laws establish standards for day-to-day operation of our clinical laboratory in Redwood City, California, including the training and skills required of personnel and quality control. In addition, some other states require our California laboratory to be licensed in the state in order to test specimens from those states. In addition to California, our laboratory is licensed in Florida, Maryland, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island and New York. Although we have obtained licenses from states where we believe we are required to be licensed, it is possible that other states we are not aware of currently require out-of-state laboratories to obtain licensure in order to test specimens from the state, and that other states may adopt similar requirements in the future.

We may also be subject to regulations in foreign jurisdictions as we seek to expand international utilization of our tests or as such jurisdictions adopt new licensure requirements, which may require review of our tests in order to offer them or may have other limitations such as restrictions on the transport of specimens necessary for us to perform our tests that may limit our ability to make our tests available outside of the United States. Complying with licensure requirements in new jurisdictions may be expensive, time-consuming and subject us to significant and unanticipated delays.

Failure to comply with applicable clinical laboratory licensure requirements may result in a range of enforcement actions, including suspension, limitation or revocation of our CLIA certificate and/or state licenses, imposition of a directed plan of action, on-site monitoring, civil monetary penalties, criminal sanctions, inability to receive reimbursement from Medicare, Medicaid and commercial payers, as well as significant adverse publicity. Any sanction imposed under CLIA, its implementing regulations, or state or foreign laws or regulations governing clinical laboratory licensure or our failure to renew our CLIA certificate, a state or foreign license or accreditation, could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations. Even if we were able to bring our laboratory back into compliance, we could incur significant expenses and potentially lose revenue in doing so.

In order to test specimens from New York, LDTs must be approved by the New York State Department of Health, or NYSDOH, on a product-by-product basis before they are offered, and our Guardant360 test has been approved by NYSDOH. We will need to seek NYSDOH approval of any future LDTs we develop and want to offer for clinical testing to New York residents, and there can be no assurance that we will be able to obtain such approval. As a result, we are subject to periodic inspection by the NYSDOH and are required to demonstrate ongoing compliance with NYSDOH regulations and standards. To the extent NYSDOH identified any non-compliance and we are unable to implement satisfactory corrective actions to remedy such non-compliance, the State of New York could withdraw approval for our tests.

The College of American Pathologists, or CAP, maintains a clinical laboratory accreditation program. While not required to operate a CLIA-certified laboratory, many private insurers require CAP accreditation as a condition to contracting with clinical laboratories to cover their tests. In addition, some countries outside the United States require CAP accreditation as a condition to permitting clinical laboratories to test samples taken from their citizens. In 2014, we obtained CAP accreditation for our Redwood City, California laboratory, and in order to maintain such accreditation, we are subject to survey for compliance with CAP standards every two years. Failure to maintain CAP accreditation could have a material adverse effect on the sales of our tests and the results of our operations.

We are subject to numerous federal and state healthcare statutes and regulations; complying with such laws pertaining to our business is an expensive and time-consuming process, and any failure to comply could result in substantial penalties and a material adverse effect to our business and results of operations.

Table of Contents

Our operations are subject to other extensive federal, state, local and foreign laws and regulations, all of which are subject to change. These laws and regulations may include, among others:

•the AKS, which prohibits knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind (e.g. provision of free or discounted goods, services or items), in return for or to induce such person to refer an individual, or to purchase, lease, order, arrange for or recommend purchasing, leasing or ordering, any good, facility, item or service that is reimbursable, in whole or in part, under a federal healthcare program. The term ‘‘remuneration’’ has been broadly interpreted to include anything of value, such as phlebotomy kits. Although there are a number of statutory exceptions and regulatory safe harbors protecting certain common activities from prosecution or other regulatory sanctions, the exceptions and safe harbors are drawn narrowly, and practices that involve remuneration that are alleged to be intended to induce referrals, purchases or recommendations of covered items or services may be subject to scrutiny if they do not qualify for an exception or safe harbor. Failure to meet all of the requirements of a particular applicable statutory exception or regulatory safe harbor does not make the conduct per se illegal under the AKS. Instead, the legality of the arrangement will be evaluated on a case-by-case basis based on a cumulative review of all its facts and circumstances. Several courts have held that if any one purpose of an arrangement involving remuneration is to induce referrals of federal healthcare covered business, the AKS has been violated. Moreover, a person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation. Violations are subject to significant civil monetary penalties, plus up to three times the remuneration involved. Violations of the AKS may also result in criminal penalties, including additional fines and imprisonment of up to ten years, and exclusion from Medicare, Medicaid or other governmental healthcare programs;

•the EKRA, which prohibits knowingly and willfully soliciting or receiving any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe or rebate) directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, in return for referring a patient or patronage to a laboratory; or paying or offering any remuneration (including any kickback, bribe or rebate) directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, to induce a referral of an individual to a laboratory or in exchange for an individual using the services of that laboratory. The EKRA applies to all payers including commercial payers and government payers. Violations of EKRA are subject to significant fines and/or up to 10 years in jail, separate and apart from existing AKS regulations and penalties;

•the Stark Law, which prohibits a physician from making a referral for certain designated health services covered by the Medicare or Medicaid program, including laboratory and pathology services, if the physician or an immediate family member of the physician has a financial relationship with the entity providing the designated health services and prohibits that entity from billing, presenting or causing to be presented a claim for the designated health services furnished pursuant to the prohibited referral, unless an exception applies. Sanctions for violating the Stark Law include denial of payment, significant civil monetary penalties (on a per claim basis and additional penalties for a circumvention scheme), and exclusion from the federal health care programs;

•the federal Civil Monetary Penalties Law, which prohibits, among other things, the offering or transfer of remuneration to a Medicare or state healthcare program beneficiary if the person knows or should know it is likely to influence the beneficiary’s selection of a particular provider, practitioner or supplier of services reimbursable by Medicare or a state healthcare program, unless an exception applies. Violations can result in significant civil monetary penalties for each wrongful act;

•federal and state “Anti-Markup” rules, which, among other things, typically prohibit a physician or supplier billing for clinical or diagnostic tests (with certain exceptions) from marking up the price of a purchased test performed by another physician or supplier that does not “share a practice” with the billing physician or supplier;

•the federal Physician Payments Sunshine Act, which requires certain manufacturers of drugs, biologicals, and kits, medical devices or supplies that require premarket approval by or notification to the FDA, and for which payment is available under Medicare, Medicaid or the Children’s Health Insurance Program to report annually to CMS, information related to (i) payments and other transfers of value to physicians, certain other health care professionals beginning in 2022, and teaching hospitals, and (ii) ownership and investment interests in such manufacturers held by physicians and their immediate family members. Failure to submit required information may result in significant civil monetary penalties for any payments, transfers of value or ownership or investment interests that are not timely, accurately, and completely reported in an annual submission, and may result in liability under other federal laws or regulations;

Table of Contents

•the federal government may bring a lawsuit under the False Claims Act, or the FCA, against any party whom it believes has knowingly or recklessly presented, or caused to be presented, a false or fraudulent request for payment from the federal government, or who has made a false statement or used a false record to get a claim for payment approved. The federal government and a number of courts have taken the position that claims presented in violation of certain other statutes, including the AKS or the Stark Law, can also be considered a violation of the FCA based on the theory that a provider impliedly certifies compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and other rules when submitting claims for reimbursement. An FCA violation may provide the basis for the imposition of administrative penalties as well as exclusion from participation in governmental healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid. A number of states including California have enacted laws that are similar to the federal FCA. Private individuals can bring FCA “qui tam” actions, on behalf of the government and such individuals, commonly known as “whistleblowers,” may share in amounts paid by the entity to the government in fines or settlement. When an entity is determined to have violated the FCA, the government may impose civil fines and penalties for each false claim, plus treble damages, and exclude the entity from participation in federal healthcare programs;

•the HIPAA fraud and abuse provisions, which created federal criminal statutes that prohibit, among other things, knowingly and willfully executing, or attempting to execute, a scheme to defraud any healthcare benefit program, including private insurers, knowingly and willfully embezzling or stealing from a healthcare benefit program, willfully obstructing a criminal investigation of a healthcare offense, and knowingly and willfully falsifying, concealing or covering up a material fact or making any materially false, fictitious or fraudulent statement in connection with the delivery of or payment for healthcare benefits, items or services. A person or entity does not need to have actual knowledge of the statute or specific intent to violate it in order to have committed a violation;

•federal and state laws related to, among other things, unlawful schemes to defraud, excessive fees for services, unlawful trade practices, insurance fraud, kickbacks, patient inducement and statutory or common law fraud restrict the provision of products, services or items for free or at reduced charge to government or non-government healthcare program beneficiaries. These laws and regulations relating to the provision of items or services for free are complex and are subject to interpretation by the courts and by government agencies;

•other federal and state fraud and abuse laws, such as state anti-kickback, self-referrals, false claims and anti-markup laws, any of which may extend to services reimbursable by any payer, including private insurers;

•state laws that prohibit other specified practices, such as billing physicians for tests that they order; providing tests at no or discounted cost to induce adoption; waiving co-insurance, co-payments, deductibles or other amounts owed by patients; billing a state healthcare program at a price that is higher than what is charged to other payers; or employing, exercising control over or splitting fees with licensed medical professionals; and

•similar foreign laws and regulations in the countries in which we operate or may operate in the future.

As a clinical laboratory, our business practices may face additional scrutiny from various government agencies such as the Department of Justice, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Office of Inspector General, or OIG, and CMS. Certain arrangements between clinical laboratories and referring physicians have been identified in fraud alerts issued by the OIG as implicating the AKS. The OIG has stated that it is particularly concerned about these types of arrangements because the choice of laboratory and the decision to order laboratory tests typically are made or strongly influenced by the physician, with little or no patient input. Moreover, the provision of payments or other items of value by a clinical laboratory to a referral source could be prohibited under the Stark Law unless the arrangement meets all criteria of an exception. The government has been active in enforcement of these laws against clinical laboratories.

Table of Contents

Numerous states have enacted laws prohibiting business corporations, such as us, from practicing medicine and from employing or engaging physicians and other medical professionals (generally referred to as the prohibition against the corporate practice of medicine), which could include physician laboratory directors. These laws are designed to prevent interference in the medical decision-making process by anyone who is not a licensed medical professional. For example, California’s Medical Board has indicated that determining the appropriate diagnostic tests for a particular condition and taking responsibility for the ultimate overall care of a patient, including making treatment options available to the patient, would constitute the unlicensed practice of medicine if performed by an unlicensed person. Violation of these laws may result in sanctions and civil or criminal penalties. It is possible that governmental authorities may conclude that our business practices, including our consulting and advisory board arrangements with physicians and other healthcare providers, some of whom receive stock or stock options as compensation for services provided, do not comply with current or future corporate practice of medicine statutes, regulations, agency guidance or case law.

The growth and international expansion of our business may increase the potential of violating applicable laws and regulations. The risk is further increased by the fact that many such laws and regulations have not been fully interpreted by the regulatory authorities or the courts, and their provisions are open to a variety of interpretations. Efforts to ensure that our internal operations and business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. Any action brought against us for violation of these or other laws or regulations, even if we successfully defend against it, could cause us to incur significant legal expenses and divert our management’s attention from the operation of our business. Any of the foregoing consequences could seriously harm our business and our financial results. To the extent our business operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or regulations, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, including, without limitation, damages, monetary fines, individual imprisonment, disgorgement of profits, possible exclusion from participation in Medicare, Medicaid and other healthcare programs, contractual damages, reputational harm, diminished profits and future earnings, additional reporting or oversight obligations if we become subject to a corporate integrity agreement or other agreement to resolve allegations of non-compliance with the law and curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and pursue our strategy. If any of the healthcare providers or other parties with whom we interact or may interact in the future, are found not to be in compliance with applicable laws and regulations, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from participation in various healthcare programs, which could also negatively affect our business or revenue.

If the validity of an informed consent from patients regarding our test was challenged, we could be forced to stop offering our products or using our resources, our business and results of operations will be negatively affected.

We offer our tests to physicians and to biopharmaceutical companies in connection with clinical trials. We have implemented measures to ensure that data and biological samples that we receive have been collected from subjects who have provided appropriate informed consent. We also act as a sponsor of clinical trials in connection with the development of our tests, which are frequently conducted in collaboration with different parties. We seek to receive approval from an ethical review board, or institutional review board, or IRB, for projects that meet the definition of “human subjects research,” which includes review and approval of processes for subject informed consent and authorization for use of personal information or waivers thereof. We and our biopharmaceutical partners could conduct clinical trials in a number of different countries. When we are acting as a vendor in connection with a clinical trial sponsored by our biopharmaceutical partners, we rely upon them to comply with the requirements to obtain the subject’s informed consent and to comply with applicable laws and regulations. The collection of data and samples in many different countries results in complex legal questions regarding the adequacy of informed consent and the status of genetic material under a large number of different legal systems. Those informed consents could be challenged and prove invalid, unlawful, or otherwise inadequate for our purposes. Any such findings against us, or our biopharmaceutical partners, could force us to stop accessing or using data and samples or servicing or conducting clinical trials, which would hinder our product offerings or development. We could also become involved in legal actions, which could consume our management and financial resources.

We may be subject to fines, penalties, licensure requirements, or legal liability, if it is determined that through our test reports we are practicing medicine without a license.

Table of Contents

Our test reports delivered to physicians provide information regarding FDA-approved therapies and clinical trials that oncologists may use in making treatment decisions for their patients. We make members of our organization available to discuss the information provided in the reports. Certain state laws prohibit the practice of medicine without a license. Our customer service representatives and medical affairs team provide support to our customers, including assistance in interpreting the test report results. A governmental authority or other parties could allege that the identification of available therapies and clinical trials in our reports and the related customer service we provide constitute the practice of medicine. A state may seek to have us discontinue the inclusion of certain aspects of our test reports or the related services we provide, or subject us to fines, penalties, or licensure requirements. Any determination that we are practicing medicine without a license may result in significant liability to us, and our business and reputation would be harmed.

Our billing and claim processing are complex and time-consuming, and any delay in submitting claims or failure to comply with applicable billing requirements could hinder collection and have an adverse effect on our revenue.

Billing for our tests is complex, time-consuming and expensive. Depending on the billing arrangement and applicable law, we bill various payers, such as Medicare, Medicaid, health plans, insurance companies and patients, all of which may have different billing requirements. Several factors make the billing process complex, including:

•differences between the list prices for our tests and the reimbursement rates of payers;

•compliance with complex federal and state regulations related to billing government healthcare programs, including Medicare and Medicaid, to the extent our tests are covered by such programs;

•differences in coverage among payers and the effect of patient co-payments or co-insurance;

•differences in information, pre-authorization and other billing requirements among payers;

•changes to codes and coding instructions governing our tests;

•incorrect or missing billing information; and

•the resources required to manage the billing and claim appeals process.

These billing complexities and the related uncertainty in obtaining payment for our tests could negatively affect our revenue and cash flow, our ability to achieve profitability and the consistency and comparability of our results of operations. In addition, if claims for our tests are not submitted to payers on a timely basis, or if we fail to comply with applicable billing requirements, it could have an adverse effect on our revenue and our business.

In addition, the coding procedure used by third-party payers to identify various procedures, including our test, during the billing process is complex, does not adapt well to our tests and may not enable coverage and adequate reimbursement rates. Third-party payers usually require us to identify the test for which we are seeking reimbursement using a Current Procedural Terminology, or the CPT code. CPT coding plays a significant role in how our Guardant360 test is reimbursed both from commercial and governmental payers. The CPT code set is maintained by the American Medical Association, or AMA. In cases where there is not a specific CPT code to describe a test, such as Guardant360 test, the test may be billed under an unlisted molecular pathology procedure code or through the use of a combination of single gene CPT codes, depending on the payer. The Protecting Access to Medicare Act, or PAMA authorized the adoption of new, temporary billing codes and unique test identifiers for FDA-cleared or approved tests as well as advanced diagnostic laboratory tests. The AMA has created a new section of CPT codes, Proprietary Laboratory Analyses codes or PLA, to facilitate implementation of this section of PAMA. In addition, CMS maintains the Healthcare Common Procedure Coding System, or HCPCS, and may assign unique level II HCPCS code to tests that are not already described by a unique CPT code. New CPT codes are issued annually and new HCPCS codes are issued as frequently as quarterly. Payers’ acceptance of the new code could be delayed, and transition to the new code could result in a decrease in reimbursement for our tests, both of which could potentially reduce revenue from commercial and government payers. In addition, Z-Code Identifiers are used by certain payers, including under Medicare's Molecular Diagnostic Services Program, or MolDx, to supplement CPT codes for molecular diagnostics tests such as our Guardant360 test. Following the FDA approval of our Guardant360 CDx test, a new Z-Code Identifier is expected to be issued, and a new pricing is expected to be established under MolDx for the Guardant360 CDx test. While we expect to continue to submit claims to Medicare for Guardant360 LDT clinical tests performed for such qualifying patients using the existing Z-Code Identifier, Medicare has instructed us to not submit claims to Medicare for Guardant360 CDx clinical tests until the new code is issued for the Guardant360 CDx test and the corresponding pricing is established. This new pricing for Guardant360 CDx

Table of Contents

clinical tests could be different from the current pricing for Guardant360 LDT clinical tests which could affect our future revenue. A PLA code was issued for our Guardant360 CDx in January 2021 with an effective date in April 2021. Once the code is effective, all Guardant360 CDx services will be billed with this new code. Additionally, based on this new PLA code, we applied to CMS for our Guardant360 CDx test to become an advanced diagnostic laboratory test, or ADLT. If CMS grants ADLT status to the Guardant360 CDx test, for the first three quarters thereafter, we can only bill Medicare at the lowest available commercial rate at the launch of the test. After the initial three quarters, we can bill Medicare for Guardant360 CDx services at the median rate of claims paid by commercial payers. Changes to the codes used to bill a test to payers may result in significant changes in its reimbursement, which could negatively impact our revenue. As a result of implementing this new coding change for our Guardant360 CDx test, payments for Guardant360 CDx services could be reduced, put on hold, or eliminated by such payers.

Use of coding for billing our products that does not describe a specific test, requires the claim to be examined to determine what test was provided, whether the test was appropriate and medically necessary, and whether payment should be rendered, which may require a letter of medical necessity from the ordering physician. This process can result in a delay in processing the claim, a lower reimbursement amount or denial of the claim. Because billing third-party payers for our tests is an unpredictable, challenging, time-consuming and costly process, we may face long collection cycles and the risk that we may never collect at all, either of which could adversely affect our business, results of operations and financial condition, and we may have to increase collection efforts and incur additional costs.

Changes in healthcare laws, regulations and policies could increase our costs, decrease our sales and revenues and negatively impact reimbursement for our tests.

In March 2010, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, as amended by the Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act, or the ACA, became law. This law substantially changed the way health care is financed by both commercial payers and government payers, and significantly impacted our industry. The ACA contains a number of provisions expected to impact existing state and federal health care programs or result in the development of new programs, including those governing enrollments in state and federal health care programs, reimbursement changes and fraud and abuse. Our business and operations could be affected by the ACA, including in ways we cannot currently predict.

Since its enactment, there have been efforts to repeal all or part of the ACA. On November 10, 2020, the U.S. Supreme Court heard oral arguments in California vs. Texas to determine whether the entire ACA should be unenforceable nationwide or whether it should be unenforceable only to the extent that provisions injure the individual plaintiffs. It is unclear how the Supreme Court decision, and efforts to challenge, repeal or replace the ACA will impact the ACA or our business.

In addition, other legislative changes have been proposed and adopted since the ACA was enacted. On August 2, 2011, the Budget Control Act of 2011 was signed into law, which, among other things, reduced Medicare payments to providers by 2% per fiscal year, effective on April 1, 2013 and, due to subsequent legislative amendments to the statute, will remain in effect through 2029 unless additional Congressional action is taken.

We anticipate there will continue to be proposals by legislators at both the federal and state levels, regulators and commercial and government payers to reduce healthcare costs while expanding individual healthcare benefits. Certain of these changes could impose additional limitations on the prices we will be able to charge for our tests, the coverage of or the amounts of reimbursement available for our tests from commercial and government payers.

Our collection, use and disclosure of personally identifiable information, including patient and employee information, is subject to privacy and security regulations, and our failure to comply with those regulations or to adequately secure the information in our possession could result in significant liability or reputational harm.

The privacy and security of personally identifiable information stored, maintained, received or transmitted, including electronically, is a major issue in the United States and abroad. We collect, process, maintain, retain, evaluate, utilize and distribute large amounts of personal health and financial information and other confidential and sensitive data about our customers and others in the ordinary course of our business. Concerns about and claims challenging our practices with regard to the collection, use, retention, disclosure or security of personally identifiable information or other privacy-related matters, even if unfounded and even if we are in compliance with applicable laws, could damage our reputation and harm our business.

Table of Contents

Numerous federal, state and foreign laws and regulations govern collection, dissemination, use and confidentiality of personally identifiable information and protected health information, including HIPAA, state privacy and confidentiality laws (including state laws requiring disclosure of breaches); federal and state consumer protection and employment laws; and European and other foreign data protection laws. And new privacy legislation may create additional rights for consumers and impose additional requirements on businesses. As these laws and regulations increase in complexity and number, they may change frequently, sometimes conflict and increase our compliance efforts, costs and risks.

HIPAA, as amended by HITECH, establishes a set of national privacy and security standards for the protection of protected health information, or PHI, by health plans, certain healthcare providers and others that submit certain covered transactions electronically, or ‘‘covered entities,’’ and their ‘‘business associates,’’ which are persons or entities that perform certain services for, or on behalf of, a covered entity that involve creating, receiving, maintaining or transmitting PHI. We are a covered entity under HIPAA and therefore must comply with its requirements to protect the privacy and security of health information and must provide individuals with certain rights with respect to their health information. If we engage a business associate to help us carry out healthcare activities and functions, we must have a written business associate contract or other arrangement with the business associate that establishes specifically what the business associate has been engaged to do and requires the business associate to comply with the same requirements.

Penalties for violations of these laws vary. For instance, a single breach incident can result in findings of violations of multiple HIPAA provisions. Penalties for failure to comply with a requirement of HIPAA and HITECH vary significantly, and include civil monetary penalties for each provision of HIPAA that is violated and, in certain circumstances, criminal penalties, including imprisonment and/or additional fines. A person who knowingly obtains or discloses individually identifiable health information in violation of HIPAA may face additional fines and up to one-year imprisonment. The criminal penalties increase if the wrongful conduct involves false pretenses or the intent to sell, transfer, or use identifiable health information for commercial advantage, personal gain, or malicious harm. In addition, responding to government investigations regarding alleged violations of these and other laws and regulations, even if ultimately concluded with no findings of violations or no penalties imposed, can consume company resources and impact our business and, if public, harm our reputation.

Further, various states, such as California and Massachusetts, have implemented similar privacy laws and regulations, such as the California Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, that impose restrictive requirements regulating the use and disclosure of health information and other personally identifiable information, and the California Consumer Privacy Act, which came into effect on January 1, 2020, and creates new data privacy rights for users,. These laws and regulations are not necessarily preempted by HIPAA, particularly if a state affords greater protection to individuals than HIPAA. Where state laws are more protective, we may have to comply with the stricter provisions. In addition to fines and penalties imposed upon violators, some of these state laws also afford private rights of action to individuals who believe their personal information has been misused. The interplay of federal and state laws may be subject to varying interpretations by courts and government agencies, creating complex compliance issues for us and our clients, and potentially exposing us to additional expense, adverse publicity and liability. Further, as regulatory focus on privacy issues continues to increase and laws and regulations concerning the protection of personal information expand and become more complex, these potential risks to our business could intensify. Changes in laws or regulations associated with the enhanced protection of certain types of sensitive data, such as PHI, or personally identifiable information along with increased demands for enhanced data security infrastructure, could greatly increase our costs of providing our services, decrease demand for our services, reduce our revenue and/or subject us to additional risks.

In addition, the interpretation and application of consumer, health-related, and data protection laws, especially with respect to genetic samples and data, in the United States, the EU, and elsewhere are often uncertain, contradictory, and in flux. We and our joint ventures operate or may operate in a number of countries outside of the United States whose laws may in some cases be more stringent than the requirements in the United States. For example, EU member countries have specific requirements relating to cross-border transfers of personal data to certain jurisdictions, including to the United States where our laboratory resides. In addition, some countries have stricter consumer notice and/or consent requirements relating to personal data collection, use or sharing, more stringent requirements relating to organizations’ privacy programs and provide stronger individual rights. Moreover, international privacy and data security regulations may become more complex and have greater consequences. For instance, the General Data Protection Regulation, or GDPR, went into effect in May 2018 and imposes stringent data protection requirements for controllers and processors of personal data of persons within the EU. The GDPR applies to any company established in the EU as well as to those outside the EU if they collect and use personal data in connection with the offering of goods or services to individuals in the EU or the monitoring of their behavior. The

Table of Contents

GDPR enhances data protection obligations for processors and controllers of personal data, including, for example, higher standards for obtaining consent from individuals to process their personal data, more robust disclosures to individuals and a strengthened individual data rights regime, shortened timelines for data breach notifications, limitations on retention of information, increased requirements pertaining to health data, other special categories of personal data and pseudonymised (i.e., key-coded) data and additional obligations when we contract third-party processors in connection with the processing of the personal data. The GDPR provides that EU member states may make their own further laws and regulations limiting the processing of personal data, including genetic, biometric or health data, which could limit our ability to use and share personal data or could cause our costs could increase, and harm our business and financial condition. Failure to comply with the requirements of GDPR and the applicable national data protection laws of the EU Member States may result in fines of up to €20,000,000 or up to 4% of the total worldwide annual turnover of the preceding financial year, whichever is higher, and other administrative penalties. Failure to comply with the GDPR and other applicable privacy or data security-related laws, rules or regulations could result in material penalties imposed by regulators, affect our compliance with client contracts and have an adverse effect on our business, financial condition and results of operations.

European data protection law also imposes strict rules on the transfer of personal data out of the EU to the United States. These obligations may be interpreted and applied in a manner that is inconsistent from one jurisdiction to another and may conflict with other requirements or our practices. In addition, these rules are constantly under scrutiny. For example, the EU-US Privacy Shield and the Swiss-US Privacy Shield were both invalidated by the Court of Justice of the EU, and the Swiss Commissioner, respectively. Further, the EU Standard Contractual Clauses are the subject of legal challenges in European courts and may face additional challenges in the future, and the absence of successor safeguards for continued data transfer could require us to create duplicative, and potentially expensive, information technology infrastructure and business operations in Europe or limit our ability to collect and use personal information collected in Europe. In addition, the EU Commission has proposed a new ePrivacy Regulation that would address various matters, including provisions specifically aimed at the use of cookies to identify an individual’s online behavior, and any such ePrivacy Regulation may provide for new compliance obligations and significant penalties. Any of these changes to EU data protection law or its interpretation could disrupt and harm our business. We rely on a mixture of safeguards to transfer personal data from our EU business to the U.S., and could be impacted by changes in law as a result of a future review of these transfer mechanisms by European regulators or current challenges to these mechanisms in the European courts.

In addition, the United Kingdom leaving the EU could also lead to further legislative and regulatory changes. It remains unclear how the United Kingdom data protection laws or regulations will develop in the medium to longer term and how data transfer to the United Kingdom from the EU will be regulated, especially following the United Kingdom's departure from the EU on January 31, 2020 without a deal. However, the United Kingdom has transposed the GDPR into domestic law with the Data Protection Act 2018, which remains in force following the United Kingdom's departure from the EU.

Because of the breadth of these laws and the narrowness of their exceptions and safe harbors, it is possible that our current practices are challenged under one or more of such laws. The scope and enforcement of each of these laws is uncertain and subject to rapid change in the current environment of healthcare reform. Federal, state and foreign enforcement bodies have increased their scrutiny of interactions between healthcare companies and healthcare providers, which has led to a number of investigations, prosecutions, convictions and settlements in the healthcare industry.

Risks related to our intellectual property

If we are unable to obtain and maintain sufficient intellectual property protection for our technology, or if the scope of the intellectual property protection obtained is not sufficiently broad, our competitors could develop and commercialize products similar or identical to ours, and our ability to successfully commercialize our products may be impaired.

We rely on patent protection as well as trademark, copyright, trade secret and other intellectual property rights protection and contractual restrictions to protect our proprietary technologies, all of which provide limited protection and may not adequately protect our rights or permit us to gain or keep any competitive advantage. If we fail to protect our intellectual property, third parties may be able to compete more effectively against us. In addition, we have incurred and may continue to incur substantial litigation costs in our attempts to recover or restrict use of our intellectual property.

To the extent our intellectual property offers inadequate protection, or is found to be invalid or unenforceable, we would be exposed to a greater risk of direct competition. If our intellectual property does not provide adequate

Table of Contents

coverage of our competitors’ products, our competitive position could be adversely affected, as could our business. Both the patent application process and the process of managing patent disputes can be time-consuming and expensive.

As is the case with other biotechnology companies, our success depends in large part on our ability to obtain and maintain protection of the intellectual property we own solely and may own jointly with others or we have licensed and may continue to license from others, particularly patents, in the United States and other countries with respect to our products and technologies. We apply for patents covering our products and technologies and uses thereof, as we deem appropriate. However, obtaining and enforcing biotechnology patents is costly, time-consuming and complex, and we may fail to apply for patents on important products, services and technologies in a timely fashion or at all, or we may fail to apply for patents in potentially relevant jurisdictions. We may not be able to file and prosecute all necessary or desirable patent applications, or maintain, enforce and license any patents that may issue from such patent applications, at a reasonable cost or in a timely manner. It is also possible that we will fail to identify patentable aspects of our research and development output before it is too late to obtain patent protection. We may not have the right to control the preparation, filing and prosecution of patent applications, or to maintain the rights to patents licensed to third parties. Therefore, these patents and applications may not be prosecuted and enforced in a manner consistent with the best interests of our business.

We own or license numerous U.S. patents and pending U.S. patent applications, with international counterparts in certain countries. It is possible that our or our licensors’ pending patent applications will not result in issued patents in a timely fashion or at all, and even if patents are granted, they may not provide a basis for intellectual property protection of commercially viable products or services, may not provide us with any competitive advantages, or may be challenged and invalidated by third parties. It is possible that others will design around our current or future patented technologies. Some of such patent rights are being challenged, including at the United States Patent and Trademark Office, or USPTO, in post-grant proceedings, at the European Patent Office, or EPO, in opposition proceedings, and some of such patent rights may be challenged in the future. We may not be successful in defending any such challenges made against our owned or licensed patents or patent applications. Any successful third-party challenge to such patent rights could result in their unenforceability or invalidity and increased competition to our business. We have challenged and may choose to challenge the patents or patent applications of third parties. The outcome of patent litigation or other proceeding can be uncertain, and any attempt by us to enforce our patent rights against others or to challenge the patent rights of others may not be successful, or, if successful, may take substantial time and result in substantial cost, and may divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business.

The patent positions of life sciences companies can be highly uncertain and involve complex legal and factual questions for which important legal principles remain unresolved. No consistent policy regarding the breadth of claims allowed in such companies’ patents has emerged to date in the United States or elsewhere. Courts frequently render opinions in the biotechnology field that may affect the patentability of certain inventions or discoveries, including opinions that may affect the patentability of methods for analyzing or comparing DNA sequences.

In particular, the patent positions of companies engaged in the development and commercialization of genomic diagnostic tests, like our current products and tests, and our future products, are particularly uncertain. Various courts, including the U.S. Supreme Court, have rendered decisions that affect the scope of patentability of certain inventions or discoveries relating to certain diagnostic tests and related methods. These decisions state, among other things, that a patent claim that recites an abstract idea, natural phenomenon or law of nature (for example, the relationship between particular genetic variants and cancer) are not themselves patentable. Precisely what constitutes a law of nature is uncertain, and it is possible that certain aspects of genetic diagnostics tests would be considered natural laws. Accordingly, the evolving legal and administrative standards around the world, including in the United States may adversely affect our ability to obtain patents and may facilitate third-party challenges to any owned or licensed patents. The laws of some foreign jurisdictions do not protect intellectual property rights to the same extent as the laws of the United States, and we may encounter difficulties in protecting and defending such rights in foreign jurisdictions. The legal systems of many foreign jurisdictions do not favor the enforcement of patent rights and other intellectual property protection, particularly those relating to biotechnology, which could make it difficult for us to stop the infringement of our patent rights and other intellectual property rights thereunder. Proceedings to enforce our patent rights and other intellectual property protection in foreign jurisdictions could result in substantial cost and divert our efforts and attention from other aspects of our business.

Table of Contents

Changes in patent law in the United States and other jurisdictions could diminish the value of patents in general, thereby impairing our ability to protect our products.

Changes in either the patent laws or in interpretations of patent laws in the United States or other countries or regions may diminish the value of our intellectual property. We cannot predict the breadth of claims that may be allowed or enforced in our patents or in third-party patents. We may not develop additional proprietary products, methods and technologies that are patentable.

Assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, prior to March 16, 2013, in the United States, the first to invent the claimed invention was entitled to the patent, while outside the United States, the first to file a patent application was entitled to the patent. On or after March 16, 2013, under the Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, or the America Invents Act, enacted in September 16, 2011, the United States transitioned to a first inventor to file system in which, assuming that other requirements for patentability are met, the first inventor to file a patent application will be entitled to the patent on an invention regardless of whether a third party was the first to invent the claimed invention. A third party that files a patent application in the USPTO on or after March 16, 2013, but before us could therefore be awarded a patent covering an invention of ours even if we had made the invention before it was made by such third party. This will require us to be cognizant of the time from invention to filing of a patent application. Since patent applications in the United States and most other countries are confidential for a period of time after filing or until issuance, we cannot be certain that we or our licensors were the first to either (i) file any patent application related to our product candidates or (ii) invent any of the inventions claimed in our or our licensor’s patents or patent applications.

The America Invents Act also includes a number of significant changes that affect the way patent applications will be prosecuted and also affect patent litigation. These include allowing third-party submission of prior art to the USPTO during patent prosecution or post-grant proceedings, including post-grant review, inter partes review and derivation proceedings, to attack the validity of a patent. Because of a lower evidentiary standard in USPTO proceedings compared to the evidentiary standard in United States federal courts necessary to invalidate a patent claim, a third party could potentially provide evidence in a USPTO proceeding sufficient for the USPTO to hold a claim invalid even though the same evidence might not be sufficient to invalidate the claim if presented in a district court action. Accordingly, third parties have used and may continue to use the USPTO proceedings to invalidate our patent claims that would not have been invalidated if first challenged by the third party in a district court action. Therefore, the America Invents Act and its implementation could increase the uncertainties and costs surrounding our or our licensors' prosecution of patent applications and enforcement or defense of issued patents, all of which could have a material adverse effect on our business, financial condition, results of operations and prospects.

Issued patents covering our products could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged.

The issuance of a patent is not conclusive as to its inventorship, scope, validity or enforceability. Some of our owned or licensed patent rights have been, are being or may be challenged at a future point in time in opposition, derivation, re-examination, inter partes review, post-grant review or interference. Any successful third-party challenge to our patent rights in this or any other proceeding could result in the unenforceability or invalidity of such patent rights, which may lead to increased competition to our business, which could harm our business. In addition, if the breadth or strength of protection provided by our patents and patent applications is threatened, regardless of the outcome, it could dissuade companies from collaborating with us to license, develop or commercialize our current or future products.

We may not be aware of all third-party intellectual property rights potentially relating to our product candidates. Publications of discoveries in the scientific literature often lag behind the actual discoveries, and patent applications in the United States and other jurisdictions are typically not published until approximately 18 months after filing or, in some cases, not until such patent applications issue as patents. We might not have been the first to make the inventions covered by each of our pending patent applications and we might not have been the first to file patent applications for these inventions. To determine the priority of these inventions, we have participated and may continue to participate in interference proceedings, derivation proceedings or other post-grant proceedings declared by the USPTO that could result in substantial cost to us. The outcome of such proceedings is uncertain. No assurance can be given that other patent applications will not have priority over our patent applications. In addition, changes to the patent laws of the United States allow for various post-grant opposition proceedings that have not been extensively tested, and their outcome is therefore uncertain. Our licensors may also license patent rights to others, and we may not be aware of such licenses before they are granted or such licenses may be subject to disputes or uncertainties that affect patent rights licensed by us or could limit our ability to enforce such patent rights. If third

Table of Contents

parties bring actions against our owned or licensed patent rights, we could experience significant costs and management distraction.

GH US Equity

GH · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

Item 1A. Risk Factors

GH US Equity☆

GH · 10-K · period ended 2020-12-31

Item 1A. Risk Factors

GH US Equity