gh-20211231

UNITED STATES

SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION

WASHINGTON, DC 20549

_____________________

FORM 10-K

_____________________

(Mark One)

☒ ANNUAL REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2021

☐ TRANSITION REPORT PURSUANT TO SECTION 13 OR 15(d) OF THE SECURITIES EXCHANGE ACT OF 1934

For the transition period from to

Commission File Number: 001-38683

_____________________

GUARDANT HEALTH, INC.

(Exact Name of Registrant as Specified in its Charter)

_____________________

505 Penobscot Dr.

Redwood City, California94063

(Address of principal executive offices) (Zip Code)

Registrant’s telephone number, including area code: (855) 698-8887

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act:

Title of each class Trading Symbol(s) Name of each exchange on which registered

Common Stock, par value $0.00001 GH The Nasdaq Global Select Market

Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(g) of the Act:

None

___________________

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a well-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Exchange Act. Yes ☐No☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically every Interactive Data File required to be submitted pursuant to Rule 405 of Regulation S-T (§232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit such files). Yes☒ No ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or an emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,” “accelerated filer,” “smaller reporting company,” and “emerging growth company” in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act.

Large Accelerated Filer ☒ Accelerated Filer ☐

Non-accelerated Filer ☐ Smaller reporting company ☐

Emerging growth company ☐

If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(a) of the Exchange Act. ☐

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has filed a report on and attestation to its management's assessment of the effectiveness of its internal control over financial reporting under Section 404(b) of the Sarbanes-Oxley Act (15 U.S.C. 7262(b)) by the registered public accounting firm that prepared or issued its audit report. ☒

Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 of the Exchange Act). Yes ☐ No ☒

The aggregate market value of the voting and non‐voting common equity held by non‐affiliates of the registrant, as of the last business day of the registrant’s most recently completed second fiscal quarter was approximately $12.1 billion (based on the closing price of the registrant’s common stock on the Nasdaq Global Select Market on June 30, 2021 of $124.19 per share).

As of February 18, 2022, the registrant had 101,865,838 shares of common stock, $0.00001 par value per share, outstanding.

DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE

Portions of the registrant’s definitive proxy statement relating to its annual meeting of stockholders to be held in 2022, or the 2022 Annual Meeting, to be filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC, within 120 days after the end of the fiscal year to which this Annual Report on Form 10-K relates, are incorporated herein by reference where indicated. Except with respect to information specifically incorporated by reference in this Annual Report on Form 10-K, such proxy statement is not deemed to be filed as part hereof.

GUARDANT HEALTH, INC.

FORM 10-K

For the Fiscal Year Ended December 31, 2021

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PART I

Page

Item 1. Business 1

Item 1A. Risk Factors 27

Item 1B. Unresolved Staff Comments 77

Item 2. Properties 77

Item 3. Legal Proceedings 77

Item 4. Mine Safety Disclosures 77

PART II

Item 6. [Reserved] 78

Item 7A. Quantitative and Qualitative Disclosures About Market Risk 95

Item 8. Financial Statements and Supplementary Data 96

Item 9A. Controls and Procedures 141

Item 9B. Other Information 143

Item 9C. Disclosure Regarding Foreign Jurisdictions that Prevent Inspections 143

PART III

Item 10. Directors, Executive Officers and Corporate Governance 144

Item 11. Executive Compensation 144

Item 14. Principal Accounting Fees and Services 144

PART IV

Item 15. Exhibits and Financial Statement Schedules 144

Signatures

FORWARD-LOOKING STATEMENTS

This Annual Report on Form 10-K, including the sections titled “Business” and “Management’s Discussion and Analysis of Financial Condition and Results of Operations,” contains forward-looking statements regarding future events and our future results that are based on our current expectations, estimates, forecasts and projections about our business, our results of operations, the industry in which we operate and the beliefs and assumptions of our management. Words such as “believe,” “may,” “will,” “estimate,” “continue,” “anticipate,” “would,” “could,” “should,” “intend” and “expect,” variations of these words, and similar expressions are intended to identify forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are only predictions and are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions that are difficult to predict. Therefore, actual results may differ materially and adversely from those expressed in any forward-looking statements. Factors that might cause or contribute to such differences include, but are not limited to, those discussed in Part I, Item 1A,“Risk Factors,” of this Annual Report on Form 10-K and elsewhere herein, and in other reports we file with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission, or the SEC. While forward-looking statements are based on the reasonable expectations of our management at the time that they are made, you should not rely on them. We undertake no obligation to revise or update publicly any forward-looking statements for any reason, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise, except as may be required by law.

Each of the terms the “Company,” “we,” “our,” “us” and similar terms used herein refer collectively to Guardant Health, Inc., a Delaware corporation, and its consolidated subsidiaries, unless otherwise stated.

PART I

Item 1. Business

Overview

We are a leading precision oncology company focused on helping conquer cancer globally through use of our proprietary tests, vast data sets and advanced analytics. Today our proprietary tests are helping to realize the full potential of precision oncology by providing patients and their doctors critical insights that can inform decisions at all stages of the disease, from screening, to monitoring cancer recurrence, to treatment decisions. We believe that the key to conquering cancer is unprecedented access to its molecular information throughout all stages of the disease, which we intend to enable by our tests. By looking at the unique dimensions of cancer found in blood, including genomic alterations, methylation, and fragmentomics, we are unlocking insights that can increasingly help patients across all stages of cancer, including at its earliest, when it’s most treatable. To help identify cancer at the earliest stages, we are developing Guardant SHIELD, a blood test for cancer screening in average-risk adults without symptoms, that detects very early signs of cancer by interrogating genomic alterations, methylation, and fragmentomic signals from a simple blood draw. In pursuit of our goal to manage cancer across all stages of the disease, we provide our Guardant360, Guardant360 LDT, Guardant360 CDx and GuardantOMNI liquid biopsy-based tests for advanced stage cancer. Our Guardant360 CDx test was the first comprehensive liquid biopsy test approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, or the FDA, to provide tumor mutation profiling with solid tumors and to be used as a companion diagnostic in connection with non-small cell lung cancer, or NSCLC. In February 2021, we launched our Guardant Reveal liquid biopsy-based tests for residual and recurring cancer to first address the need in Stage II-III colorectal cancer. In June 2021, we launched Guardant360 TissueNext, our first tissue-based test which will be used to identify patients with advanced cancer who may benefit from biomarker-informed treatment, and Guardant360 Response which will be used to measure early indications to patients' response to treatment up to eight weeks earlier than response evaluation criteria in solid tumors. We have also developed our GuardantINFORM platform to further accelerate precision oncology drug development by biopharmaceutical companies by offering them an in-silico research platform to unlock further insights into tumor evolution and treatment resistance across various biomarker-driven cancers.

Therapy selection in advanced stage cancer patients - We are pioneering the clinical comprehensive biopsy market with our tests. Our Guardant360 test is a molecular diagnostic test measuring 74 cancer-related genes, our Guardant360 CDx was the first comprehensive liquid biopsy test approved by the FDA, measuring 55 cancer-related genes, and our GuardantOMNI test has a broader 500-gene panel, all of which analyze circulating tumor DNA in blood. Per American Cancer Society: 2021 Cancer Facts & Figures, there is an estimated 1.9 million new cancer cases diagnosed and 600,000 cancer deaths in the United States. Our Guardant360 test has been used over 250,000 times by clinicians to help inform which therapy may be effective for advanced stage cancer patients with solid tumors. Our tests are used by biopharmaceutical companies for a range of applications, including identifying target patient populations to accelerate translational science research and clinical study enrollment, companion diagnostic development, and post-approval commercialization. The increasing diversity of targeted therapies and associated molecular biomarkers has given rise to comprehensive genomic profiling, particularly in tumor types where multiple genomic targets can be found and treated effectively. For example, NSCLC, like other tumors, has multiple effective treatment options targeting different genomic mutations. There are nine targetable genes in NSCLC, which are comprised of alterations across all four genomic variant classes (SNVs, indels, CNVs, and fusions), as well as TMB. Five of these targets are on-label approved biomarkers for FDA-approved therapies. The NCCN treatment guidelines recommended testing for all of the genomic mutations or alterations across different cancer types, which demonstrates the requirement for broader genomic profiling.

Neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment selection in early-stage cancer patients and surveillance in cancer survivors - We have launched the Guardant Reveal test as a laboratory developed test, or LDT, to detect minimal residual disease which we believe can help identify recurrence earlier than traditional modalities in cancer survivors and potentially identify early-stage cancer patients who may benefit from adjuvant treatment. Our Guardant Reveal test leverages data and learnings from our tests and is designed to enable clinicians to detect minimal residual disease and to detect cancer recurrence at a stage when intervention may have a higher chance of success. For early-stage solid tumors, neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment may be given as a first step in care to shrink the tumor or adjuvantly as a secondary treatment after the primary treatment to reduce the risk of recurrence. However, not all early-stage cancer patients may benefit from neoadjuvant and adjuvant treatment. For instance, based on data published in 2007 from a randomized study of adjuvant chemotherapy versus observation in patients with colorectal cancer, the use of adjuvant treatment showed significant benefit for a subgroup of the patients who meet certain clinical criteria, but only marginal benefit for the patients who do not meet these criteria. We believe our Guardant Reveal test may also help biopharmaceutical companies identify new drug development opportunities. In return, these relationships could help us establish clinical utility for our tests and create new testing opportunities related to emerging therapies.

Early detection of cancer in asymptomatic individuals eligible for cancer screening - We are developing the Guardant SHIELD assay to support cancer screening in asymptomatic individuals including who are eligible for colorectal cancer screening based on the 2016 U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, or USPSTF, guidelines for colorectal cancer screening. Per American Cancer Society: Colorectal Cancer Facts & Figures 2020-2022, it is estimated that only 66% of adults at 50 years and older are screened despite compelling evidence that routine cancer screening can reduce colorectal cancer mortality, the second leading cause of cancer death. Therefore, we believe there is a significant unmet need for non-invasive modalities such as our Guardant SHIELD assay that, if successfully developed, we believe could increase compliance with the USPSTF guidelines. We are also pursuing further development of our Guardant SHIELD assay to support screening for additional cancer types in asymptomatic individuals recommended by the USPSTF and cancer types without a reference standard for screening. To clinically validate the performance of our multi-cancer screening device in detecting lung cancer, we enrolled the first patient in a nearly 10,000-patient prospective, registrational study, which we refer to as the SHIELD study, to detect lung cancer in high-risk individuals ages 50-80 and the study is anticipated to run in approximately 100 centers in the United States and Europe. We believe that developing a blood test for early detection of cancer requires a vast amount of molecular and clinical data across all stages of the disease in order to better understand the biology and clinical relevance of tumor-specific biomarkers in blood. While we believe the benefits of early detection on clinical outcomes are widely known, early detection may also benefit biopharmaceutical companies by identifying a much larger at-risk population who may benefit from early therapeutic intervention or from preventative medicines.

Guardant Health Oncology Platform -Our Guardant Health Oncology Platform is designed to leverage our capabilities in technology, clinical development, regulatory and reimbursement to drive commercial adoption, accelerate drug development, improve patient clinical outcomes and lower healthcare costs. We believe our Guardant Health Oncology Platform has developed strengths across five critical layers, each of which facilitates success in the adjacent layers, and together the five layers form a barrier to entry and provide us a competitive advantage and a platform we can efficiently leverage across multiple products. The five layers of our Guardant Health Oncology Platform are as follows:

Technology - Our proprietary Guardant Health digital sequencing technology combines cutting edge capabilities from multiple disciplines including biochemistry, next-generation sequencing, signal processing, bioinformatics, machine learning and process engineering to enable what we believe to be the world’s market leading comprehensive test with a typical turnaround time of less than seven days after we receive the sample and enable our high performing tests intended for different market segments. Furthermore, our machine learning capability enables performance improvement as we incorporate additional data.

Clinical utility - We believe that success in the clinical utility layer requires both independent investments in clinical research and strategic relationships with market-leading biopharmaceutical companies. We have invested heavily in clinical studies, including more than 60 clinical outcomes studies demonstrating that overall biomarker detection rates of our non-invasive blood testing were in line with standard of care tissue testing. Our clinical research collaborations have resulted in more than 200 peer-reviewed publications. We also have relationships with over 60 biopharmaceutical customers that have provided rigorous clinical validation of our technology and early insights into test opportunities for emerging therapeutics.

Regulatory approval - We believe our Guardant360 test was the first comprehensive liquid biopsy approved by the New York State Department of Health, or NYSDOH. In addition, based on our review of publicly available records, we believe our facility was the first comprehensive liquid biopsy laboratory to be certified pursuant to the Clinical Laboratory Improvement Amendments of 1988, or CLIA, accredited by the College of American Pathologists, or CAP, and NYSDOH-permitted. Our Guardant360 CDx test was the first comprehensive liquid biopsy test approved by the FDA, to provide tumor mutation profiling with solid tumors and to be used as a companion diagnostic in connection with NSCLC, patients who may benefit from treatment with osimertinib (EGFR exon 19 deletions, exon 20 T790M or exon 21 L858R mutations), amivantamab-vmjw (EGFR exon 20 insertion mutations), and sotorasib (KRAS G12C mutations), which have been developed by our biopharmaceutical customers AstraZeneca, Janssen Biotech and Amgen, respectively.

Payer coverage and reimbursement- We believe that the analytical and clinical data that we have generated in our efforts to establish clinical utility, combined with the support we have developed with key opinion leaders, or KOLs, in the oncology space have led to positive coverage decisions by a number of commercial payers. Our guardant360 test is currently covered by various commercial and governmental payers, including Medicare.

With respect to Medicare, in July 2018, Palmetto GBA, or Palmetto, the Medicare Administrative Contractor, or MAC, responsible for administering Medicare’s Molecular Diagnostic Services Program, or MolDx, issued a local coverage determination, or LCD, for our Guardant360 test with respect to NSCLC patients who meet certain clinical criteria, and in May 2020, Noridian Healthcare Solutions, or Noridian, the MAC responsible for adjudicating claims in California, where our laboratory is located, and a participant in MolDx, 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 Medicare’s National Coverage Determination for Next Generation Sequencing (90.2) first established in March 2018, or the NGS NCD. Following FDA approval of our Guardant360 CDx test, a new Z-Code Identifier was issued in August 2020. In January 2021, a proprietary laboratory analyses, or PLA code was issued for our Guardant360 CDx with an effective date in April 2021. Additionally, based on this new PLA code, we applied to the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services or CMS for our Guardant360 CDx test to become an advanced diagnostic laboratory test, or ADLT. In March 2021, CMS approved ADLT status to the Guardant360 CDx test, based on which Medicare paid us at the lowest available commercial rate per test, from April 1, 2021, to December 31, 2021. After this period, Medicare would reimburse Guardant360 CDx services at the median rate of claims paid by commercial payers. We are in the process of negotiating reimbursement for our Guardant Reveal, Guardant Response and Guardant360 TissueNext tests from commercial and governmental payers.

Commercial adoption - Success in each of the layers above is important for commercial adoption of our tests by clinicians and biopharmaceutical companies. Additionally, for clinicians, endorsement by KOLs, utilization by academic centers and inclusion in national treatment guidelines are important, especially for adoption in the local community setting where 80% of cancer treatment occurs. We believe that our relationships with key stakeholders across the oncology space, clinical data we believe to support use of Guardant360 test ahead of tissue-based testing, as well as the inclusion of liquid biopsy as a potential alternative under certain circumstances to tissue biopsy in NCCN guidelines, have helped facilitate the use of our tests by 11,000 oncologists, who have collectively ordered our Guardant360 test over 250,000 times, and over 100 biopharmaceutical companies. We sold 87,600 tests to clinical customers in the year ended December 31, 2021, an increase from 63,254 and 49,926 in the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively. We sold 18,600 tests to biopharmaceutical customers in the year ended December 31, 2021, compared to 15,983 and 20,643 in the years ended December 31, 2020 and 2019, respectively.

Our strategy

Our objective is to be the leading provider of precision oncology and screening products for cancer management across all stages of the disease and drive commercial adoption of our products. To achieve this, we intend to:

•Increase awareness of our products by:

▪building awareness of liquid biopsy and pioneering a blood-first paradigm for genotyping cancer patients;

▪educating biopharmaceutical companies, KOLs and advocacy groups;

▪advocating for inclusion of our tests in treatment guidelines; and

▪expanding access to our products globally through direct investment and by leveraging our global network of partners.

•Expand clinical utility and increase reimbursement for our products by:

▪working with private and public payers to establish coverage and reimbursement for our tests;

▪investing in clinical evidence directly and through relationships with academia and biopharmaceutical companies to establish expanded indications for use;

▪demonstrating improved clinical utility and health economics from use of our tests to patients, physicians and payers; and

▪pursuing FDA and other regulatory approval internationally of our tests to facilitate reimbursement and global market access.

•Strengthen our relationships with customers by:

▪demonstrating the utility of our products in connection with standard of care treatments thereby encouraging clinical adoption;

▪developing and seeking approval of our products as companion diagnostics for targeted therapies and immuno-oncology therapies; and

▪providing earlier insights into emerging clinically relevant biomarkers.

•Leverage our Guardant Health Oncology Platform to expand our product portfolio by:

▪using our commercial engine as a force multiplier of returns on research and development investment to generate data and analytical insights to enable development of new products;

▪taking a disciplined and systematic approach to product and market development, by starting with therapy selection and then expanding sequentially towards early cancer detection;

▪utilizing our data, sample biobank and insights into biology of circulating tumor-related biomarkers in blood to develop our new products;

▪building on our regulatory and commercial infrastructure to accelerate new product launches and drive commercial efficiencies; and

▪using our strategic relationships, including our partnerships with European cancer centers and research organizations, to drive global commercialization of our products.

Our products and development program

We have launched various products and programs, and we believe our product portfolio, once completed, will address the full continuum of cancer care and has utility in both the clinical and biopharmaceutical markets.

Therapy Selection

Guardant360 CDx Test

We believe our Guardant360 CDx test is the market leading comprehensive liquid biopsy test, based on the number of tests ordered. Guardant360 CDx test is a 55 gene test, approved by the FDA to provide tumor mutation profiling to be used by qualified health professionals in accordance with professional guidelines in oncology for cancer patients with any solid malignant neoplasm, and as a companion diagnostic to identify NSCLC patients who may benefit from certain targeted therapies, currently including TAGRISSO® (osimertinib), RYBREVANTTM (amivantamab-vjmw) and LUMAKRASTM (sotorasib), which supports treatment selection for advanced stage cancer patients with solid tumors. Additional gene content and immune-oncology biomarkers (e.g. MSI) are reported in a professional services compendium to the FDA approved CDx report. Results are typically delivered within seven days following receipt of sample and delivered by a clinical report.

Guardant360 LDT Test

The number of personalized therapy options for advanced cancer patients continues to grow, giving patients who may have cycled through standard of care therapies additional options. Focused on addressing patient care throughout the diagnostic journey, we launched an updated and expanded version of our LDT in 2020 to support new guideline-recommended biomarkers, including our industry leading plasma-based tumor mutational burden or TMB, MSI-High, expanded homologous recombination repair or HRR gene set, and full coverage of neurotrophic receptor tyrosine kinase or NTRK fusions. The Guardant360 LDT ensures progressing patients are given the opportunity to be eligible for these new treatment options, without the need to obtain archival tissue or subject the patient to another invasive biopsy. Results are typically delivered, ten days following receipt of sample and delivered by a clinical report.

Guardant360 Response Test

In June 2021, we launched Guardant360 Response test as an LDT, which is the first blood-only liquid biopsy that enables doctors to view molecular response, or changes in circulating tumor DNA (ctDNA) levels, from a simple blood draw to potentially gain early insight regarding patient response to treatment. For doctors, knowing early and confidently if a patient’s treatment is working is critical in deciding whether to continue, stop, or explore other options. Studies across cancers and therapies show the Guardant360 Response test predicted treatment response 8 weeks earlier than current standard-of-care radiological and imaging scans.

Guardant360 TissueNext Test

To complement our liquid biopsy-based products, we launched Guardant360 TissueNext as an LDT in June 2021, our first tissue-based test which is designed to identify patients with advanced cancer who may benefit from biomarker-informed treatment. Tissue genotyping is currently widely available to physicians and patients. We believe many tissue genotyping products currently available to physicians and patients have experienced long delays in getting results to physicians and high failure rates because of the inability to obtain enough tissue or high-quality DNA for analysis.Such delay or inability to produce results from tissue genotyping can adversely affect providing the right treatment to patients at the right time.We therefore believe our Guardant360 TissueNext, together with our liquid biopsy-based products, have the potential to help address the challenges with tissue genotyping products currently in the market.

Guardant360 clinical report

A typical Guardant360 CDx and Guardant360 clinical report contains somatic mutations, immuno-oncology markers detected in patient blood samples, associated treatment options and available clinical studies in the vicinity of the patient’s location. Additionally, the report depicts a proprietary visual representation that shows the evolution of somatic mutations in longitudinal blood samples.

Clinical studies and publications

The goal of our clinical development with our tests is to support its use for comprehensive genomic profiling across multiple tumor types, including as a preferred alternative to tissue testing to inform first line treatment right after diagnosis and at time of disease progression. We publish peer-reviewed studies in order to influence treatment guidelines, to educate clinicians and other oncology stakeholders about the value proposition of our test and to set the stage for reimbursement with private and public payers. We have over 60 approved, completed or active clinical outcomes studies, more than 200 peer-reviewed publications and more than 400 scientific abstracts. We are proactively pursuing studies to support the use of our tests as a preferred alternative to tissue testing to inform first

line treatment right after diagnosis, with the goal to provide evidence that our tests detects genomic alterations at a similar rate compared to standard of care tissue testing in the United States, Europe and Asia. Such a strategy is predicated on the tests’ ability to offer accurate, reliable and fast guideline-directed comprehensive genotyping for all adult solid tumors without exposing patients to invasive biopsy procedures’ risks, delays or chance of failure.

Minimum Residual Disease

Guardant Reveal Test

In the management of early-stage cancer, current tools do not identify all high risk patients who will benefit from adjuvant therapy ordetect recurrence early enough when it is most curable. We plan to address this need, first in Stage II-III colorectal cancer, with our Guardant Reveal test launched as an LDT in February 2021 for residual disease and recurrence monitoring. We believe the Guardant Reveal test has the potential to enable oncologists to improve the care of early-stage cancer patients by correctly identifying more high-risk patients than clinicopathologic review alone and by detecting recurrent disease months earlier than current standard of care methods like imaging carcinoembryonic antigen tests. We believe the Guardant Reveal test can improve turnaround by simultaneously interrogating both genomic and epigenomic signals from a single blood draw without the need for tissue. Similar to our data development effort for our Guardant360 tests, we are investing very heavily in establishing clinical utility for the use of Guardant Reveal in adjuvant treatment settings.

Biopharmaceutical Customers

GuardantOMNI Test

Our GuardantOMNI test is built on Guardant Health Digital Sequencing Technology and learnings from our Guardant360 test. The GuardantOMNI test, launched in 2017, has a significantly larger genomic panel footprint than the Guardant360 test and has achieved comparable analytical performance in clinical studies, including for translational science applications in collaboration with several biopharmaceutical companies, including AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Merck MSD, Merck KGaA of Darmstadt, Germany and Pfizer. It covers 500 genes, including genes associated with homologous recombination repair deficiency and biomarkers for immuno-oncology applications, such as tumor mutational burden and microsatellite instability.

In order to preserve performance characteristics of our Guardant360 test across a broader gene panel, we implemented additional enhancements to the assay efficiency and bioinformatics analysis to improve the sensitivity of our GuardantOMNI test. These enhancements are critical in the context of using the GuardantOMNI test in the retrospective testing of clinical study samples for translational science applications in collaboration with biopharmaceutical customers, as those samples are often available with only a limited volume of plasma.

Validation data indicates that the GuardantOMNI test exceeds the Guardant360 test’s sensitivity for detecting clinically actionable biomarkers. At the same time, broader panel-wide performance of small variants is roughly similar to that of Guardant360 test. The broad genomic footprint of our GuardantOMNI test enables accurate measurement of tumor mutational burden. The GuardantOMNI test received breakthrough device designation from the FDA in December 2018.

GuardantConnect

Because metastatic cancer patients often exhaust standard of care treatment options as the disease progresses and guidelines recommend clinical studies for advanced cancer patients, clinical study matching is an acute need in oncology. At the same time, biopharmaceutical companies need to fill clinical studies that require screening hundreds of thousands of patients. Despite these needs, clinical study enrollment in oncology has severely lagged, with only 3-6% of cancer patients enrolling in clinical studies. GuardantConnect is our integrated software-based solution designed for our clinical and biopharmaceutical customers, seeking to connect patients tested with the Guardant360 assay with actionable alterations with potentially relevant clinical studies.

GuardantINFORM

In 2020 we launched GuardantINFORM, our real-world evidence platform featuring an extensive clinical-genomic liquid biopsy dataset of advanced cancer patients. The GuardantINFORM platform is intended to help accelerate research and development of the next generation of cancer therapeutics by offering biopharma partners an in silico

resource that combines de-identified longitudinal clinical information and genomic data collected from the Guardant360 liquid biopsy test. This robust dataset offers real-world insights into anti-cancer therapy use and associated outcomes, and molecular drivers of treatment response and resistance for over 60 advanced cancers including non-small cell lung, breast, colon, and prostate. Applications for the GuardantINFORM platform include targeted drug development, clinical study optimization and post-marketing studies.

Screening

Guardant SHIELD

We believe that there is a critical need to develop products to expand precision oncology to earlier stage cancer settings. Such products would enable clinicians to precisely detect, monitor and select the appropriate intervention at the right times in the disease’s evolution, key to significantly improving patient clinical outcomes. In order to systematically address this need, we are developing Guardant SHIELD for asymptomatic individuals eligible for cancer screening in line with the USPSTF guidelines and in cancers where screening can reduce mortality.Our research and development results to date indicate that somatic signatures alone may be insufficient for detection of early-stage cancers with high sensitivity. For this reason, we have incorporated epigenomic signatures to enhance the performance of our Guardant SHIELD assay in these settings.

Early cancer detection is challenging, especially with respect to clinical sensitivity. There is a minimal amount of ctDNA in patients with low-disease burden. Additionally, naturally occurring genomic aberrations in blood as well as signals from non-cancer related diseases can add biological noise obfuscating detection of circulating tumor-related biomarkers. We believe we have the unique capability to overcome these challenges by leveraging our:

•Vast data sets and deep insights: We have targeted deep sequencing data in combination with low coverage sequencing of whole genome from tens of thousands of cancer patients. This data has enabled discovery of novel epigenomic variations across multiple cancer types. We believe augmenting genomic with epigenomic signatures can enhance the clinical sensitivity and specificity of our tests significantly. Moreover, we developed a database of biological noise sources such as clonal hematopoiesis of indeterminate potential, which enables us to further enhance the sensitivity and specificity of our tests.

•Extensive blood biobank: We have a biobank of tens of thousands of cancer samples that we use for discovery and, more importantly, biomarker verification and validation. For example, we are analyzing these samples with whole genome sequencing to identify and confirm tumor associated signatures. Also, we have been collecting additional samples through multiple on-going research collaborations.

Commercialization

U.S. clinical commercial efforts

We sell our tests to clinical customers in the United States through our targeted sales organization. Our clinician-focused sales organization in the United States is engaged in sales efforts and promotional activities primarily targeting oncologists and cancer centers. Our sales representatives typically have extensive backgrounds in laboratory testing, therapeutics and oncology. We have supplemented the team with clinical oncology specialists with extensive medical affairs experience for molecular information support in the field.

Our clinical commercial efforts are focused on driving adoption with academic research institutions and with community oncology practices, including through leading physician networks. As we continue to grow our sales organization, we are also expanding our reach to include large community practices, community oncology networks, integrated delivery/ payer-owned systems and government medical facilities that are looking for a reliable partner for comprehensive molecular information testing.

International clinical commercial efforts

We currently offer our tests in countries outside the United States primarily through direct contacts with insurers and hospitals and through distributor relationships.

Currently, all customer samples are shipped globally to our laboratory in Redwood City, California. We are conducting studies in various jurisdictions and have started efforts to secure reimbursement in several countries. As these studies progress and we near commercial opportunities there, we are seeking to establish in-country laboratories and direct sales organizations. Specifically, we have already demonstrated the ability to deploy our technology to partner laboratories such as cancer centers, for the development of test assays based on our technology platform. We believe that this capability will be important in accelerating adoption of our platform and the performance of our testing in certain countries.

Together with SoftBank, we formed a joint venture, Guardant Health AMEA, Inc., which we refer to as the Joint Venture, to accelerate commercialization of our products in Asia, the Middle East, and Africa. There are estimated to be over 400,000 deaths annually in Japan with a significant portion relating to lung and gastric cancers. We are involved in several nationwide clinical programs that help establish clinical utility of our Guardant360 test in the Japanese population with the first patient tested in late 2018. In 2021, an affiliate of the Joint Venture submitted an application to the Ministry of Health, Labour and Welfare, or the MHLW, for regulatory approval of Guardant360 CDx in Japan. In December 2021, the MHLW granted regulatory approval of Guardant360 CDx in patients with advanced solid cancers. In November 2021, we exercised our call right contained in the joint venture agreement with SoftBank to purchase all of the shares held by SoftBank and its affiliates in consideration for the payment of the aggregate purchase price to be determined based on an independent third-party valuation. The aggregate purchase price will be no less than an amount that yields a 20% internal rate of return on the $41.0 million of capital invested by SoftBank in May 2018 as stipulated in the joint venture agreement. SoftBank and us have initiated a process to determine the independent valuation of the Joint Venture, which includes the appointment of independent appraisers by both SoftBank and us. We expect to complete this transaction before the end of the second quarter of 2022.

In preparation for wider commercialization in the European Union, or the EU, we obtained a CE mark for our Guardant360 CDx test performed in Redwood City and also achieved ISO15189 accreditation. In 2020, we signed the first public private partnership agreement with Vall D'Hebron Institute of Oncology, one of Europe’s leading cancer research institutions. In 2021, we signed an agreement with The Royal Marsden NHS Foundation Trust, a premier cancer center within the United Kingdom for patient care, research and teaching of all types of cancer. We expect these partnerships will lead to the establishment of our testing services at the partner laboratories, using Guardant Health Digital Sequencing Technology, as well as generation of clinical and economic evidence to support commissioning in other areas of Europe.

Biopharmaceutical commercial efforts

Our business development team is focused on enterprise selling to biopharmaceutical companies in the United States and internationally. Our strategy with each biopharmaceutical customer is to demonstrate the value proposition of the Guardant Health Oncology Platform and expand its utilization across the organization from early-stage research through clinical development to commercialization. Given the broad and differentiated utility of our platform, we believe we can support our biopharmaceutical customers across many applications, including:

•discovery of new targets and mechanisms of acquired resistance;

•retrospective sample analysis to rapidly identify biomarkers associated with response and lack of response;

•prospective screening and referral services to accelerate clinical study enrollment; and

•companion diagnostic development to support the approval and commercialization of therapeutics.

We also expect to be able to capture other commercial opportunities from our genomic data, which can be used in combination with clinical outcomes or claims data for multiple applications, including novel target identification.

Payer coverage and reimbursement

Commercial payers

Payment from commercial payers can vary depending on whether we have entered into a contract with the payers as a “participating provider” or do not have a contract and are considered a “non-participating provider”. Payers often reimburse non-participating providers, if at all, at a lower amount than participating providers. When we contract with a payer to serve 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 tests and, potentially, no reimbursement for non-covered uses identified under the payer’s policies or the contract. As a result,

the potential for more favorable reimbursement associated with becoming a participating provider may be offset by a potential loss of reimbursement for non-covered uses of our tests.

We have provided testing services to patients covered by commercial payers with many cancer types and indications, most of the time as a non-participating provider through 2021. We received reimbursement for tests across the spectrum of these patients, though for amounts that on average were significantly lower than for participating providers. Because we are not contracted with these payers, they determine the amount that they are willing to reimburse us for any of our tests and they can prospectively and retrospectively adjust the amount of reimbursement.

Our tests are currently covered by various commercial payers and our reimbursement is directly impacted by their policies. We have experienced situations where commercial payers proactively reduced the amounts they were willing to reimburse for our tests, and where commercial payers have determined that the amounts previously paid were too high and sought to recover those perceived excess payments by deducting such amounts from payments owed to us.

In addition to our existing contracted payers, various laboratory benefit managers and evidence review organizations working with commercial payers have endorsed coverage of our Guardant360 test.

We are actively engaged to expand coverage among existing contracted payers and to achieve coverage with the remaining key commercial payers, laboratory benefit managers and evidence review organizations. This includes addressing variable coverage requirements and evidence required, and the need for enhanced guideline support.

As we broaden our coverage amongst contracted payers to include additional tests of ours, we may begin to experience increases in average revenue per test performed; however, we cannot make any assurances that we will be successful in broadening our coverage on a timely basis or at all. Similarly, as we have experienced with our existing contracted payers, we cannot assure that the addition of new contracted payers will increase our average selling price or revenue.

Government payers

Medicare coverage is limited to items and services that are within the scope of a Medicare benefit category that are reasonable and necessary for the diagnosis or treatment of an illness or injury. National coverage determinations are made through an evidence-based process by the CMS, with opportunities for public participation. Medicare’s NGS NCD provides coverage for molecular diagnostic tests such as our Guardant360 CDx test, if, among other criteria, such tests are offered within their FDA-approved companion diagnostic labeling.

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. 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 Medicare’s National Coverage Determination for Next Generation Sequencing established in March 2018. 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. On June 23, 2016, CMS published the final rule implementing the reporting and rate-setting requirements under PAMA. Under PAMA, laboratories that receive the majority of their Medicare revenue from payments made under the CLFS were required to report to CMS, beginning in 2017 and every three years thereafter (or annually for “advanced diagnostic laboratory tests”), commercial 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. 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 tests furnished on or after January 1, 2018, Medicare payments for clinical diagnostic laboratory tests are based upon these reported commercial payer rates. On December 10, 2021, Congress passed the Protecting Medicare and American Farmers from Sequester Cuts Act, which delays the next data reporting period by one year and prevents any reduction in payment amounts from commercial payer rate implementation in 2022.

Current Procedural Terminology, or CPT, coding plays a significant role in how our Guardant360 test is reimbursed both from commercial and governmental payers. In addition, Z-Code Identifiers are used by certain payers,

including under Medicare’s MolDx, to supplement CPT codes for molecular diagnostics tests such as our Guardant360 test. Changes to the codes used to report the Guardant360 test to payers may result in significant changes in its reimbursement. Following the FDA approval of our Guardant360 CDx test, a new Z-Code Identifier was issued in August 2020. In January 2021, a proprietary laboratory analyses, or PLA code was issued for our Guardant360 CDx with an effective date in April 2021. Additionally, based on this new PLA code, we applied to the CMS for our Guardant360 CDx test to become an advanced diagnostic laboratory test, or ADLT. In March 2021, CMS approved ADLT status to the Guardant360 CDx test, based on which Medicare paid us at the lowest available commercial rate per test, from April 1, 2021 to December 31, 2021. After this period, Medicare would reimburse Guardant360 CDx services at the median rate of claims paid by commercial payers. We are in the process of negotiating reimbursement for our Guardant Reveal, Guardant Response and Guardant360 TissueNext tests from commercial and governmental payers. Additionally, if coding changes were to occur, payments for certain uses of our tests could be reduced, put on hold, or eliminated.

State Medicaid programs make individual coverage decisions for diagnostic tests and have taken steps to control the cost, utilization and delivery of healthcare services. We believe that additional state and federal health care reform measures may be adopted in the future, any of which could have a material adverse effect on the clinical laboratory industry and our ability to successfully commercialize our tests. Any of these or other changes could substantially impact our revenues and increase costs. We cannot predict how future healthcare policy changes, if any, will affect our business and financial success.

Other Considerations

Where we are not reimbursed in full or at all, we may elect to appeal the insurer’s underpayment or denial of payment or seek payment from the patient. However, insurer appeal and patient collection efforts take a substantial amount of time and resources and are often unsuccessful. 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, we estimate the amount of revenue to be recognized at the time a test is provided and record revenue adjustments if and when the cash subsequently received for a test differs from the revenue recorded for the test. Due to this variability and unpredictability, previously recorded revenue adjustments are not indicative of future revenue adjustments from actual cash collections, which may fluctuate significantly. This variability and unpredictability could increase the risk of future revenue reversal and result in our failing to meet any previously publicly stated guidance we may provide.

Operations

We perform our tests in our clinical laboratory located in Redwood City, California. Our laboratory is CAP-accredited, CLIA-certified, NYSDOH-permitted and also licensed in California, Florida, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. In February 2022, we received CAP accreditation for our laboratory in Japan where we will commence processing samples following receipt of PMDA approval for our Guardant360 tests.

The proprietary validated methods utilize robust semi-automated workflows designed for high throughput sample testing. This methodology allows for rapid scaling of testing volume without impacting performance metrics. Our testing process includes sample collection, laboratory processing, analysis and reporting. All major processing steps utilize quality control to ensure consistent and reproducible results.

Guardant Health Digital Sequencing Technology

Guardant Health Digital Sequencing Technology combines state-of-the-art technology from multiple disciplines and is enabled by robust, high-efficiency biochemistry at the front-end, next-generation sequencing and a machine learning augmented bioinformatics pipeline. The technology, through machine learning, has accrued performance improvements by incorporating learnings generated from the data collected from additional samples.

Supply chain

We utilize industry leading vendors for our supply chain. Most reagents and materials are sourced from a limited number of vendors and would require qualification to transition to a different vendor. To mitigate risk, we employ a multi-month, multi-lot safety stock strategy to ensure an uninterrupted supply of reagent and material to our laboratory. In the event that a latent defect is identified, the lot of material in use is expected to be timely

quarantined and changed for a new lot that has been previously qualified and released for use. The experience with our vendors has provided us confidence in their ability to produce consistent and quality instrumentation, reagents and materials.

In September 2014, we entered into a supply agreement with Illumina, Inc., or Illumina, for Illumina to provide products and services that can be used for certain research and clinical activities, including certain sequencers, reagents, and other consumables for use with the Illumina sequencers, as well as service contracts for the maintenance and repair of the sequencers. The initial term of the supply agreement, as amended, continues until January 2033, and automatically renews for additional one-year terms thereafter unless either we or Illumina terminate the supply agreement for the other’s uncured material breach, bankruptcy or insolvency-related events, or in the event a regulatory authority notifies such party that continued performance under the supply agreement would violate applicable laws or regulations. We may also terminate the supply agreement for convenience upon 90 days’ prior written notice.

Competition

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 testing is also leading to more companies attempting to enter the space and compete with us. 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.

Our competitors within the liquid biopsy space include Foundation Medicine, Inc., which was acquired by Roche Holdings, Inc. in 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 our competitors in minimal residual disease testing and early screening testing.

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 Science, Myriad Genetics, Inc., Tempus Labs, Inc., and NeoGenomics Laboratories, Inc., that sell molecular diagnostic tests for cancer to physicians and have or may develop tests that 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.

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 could continue to commercialize products 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 our access to certain networks.

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.

We believe key competitive factors affecting our success are the price and performance of our products, evidence of clinical differentiation, support by KOLs, commercial competitiveness, turnaround time and scope and quality of payer contracts. Our Guardant Health Oncology Platform has developed strengths across five layers, which we believe form a barrier to entry and a competitive advantage. However, we cannot assure that we will continue to compete effectively on each of those layers and our competitive landscape may change over the next few years as a result of new competitors entering through investment and acquisition activity.

Intellectual property

Protection of our intellectual property is fundamental to the long-term success of our business. We seek to ensure that investments made into the development of our technology are protected by relying on a combination of patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets (such as know-how), license agreements, confidentiality agreements and procedures, non-disclosure agreements, invention disclosure and assignment agreements and other contractual rights and obligations.

Our patent strategy is focused on seeking coverage for our core technology, our digital sequencing platform, and specific follow-on applications and implementations for detecting and monitoring cancer or other diseases by determining genetic variations in patient samples. In addition, we file for patent protection in connection with our on-going research and development activities, particularly those related to early-stage cancer detection, including those based on pattern recognition based on analyzing our extensive patient blood sample database, among others.

Our patent portfolio includes owned and licensed patents and patent applications, generally falling into three broad categories:

•issued patents and patent applications relating to our digital sequencing platform, including claims directed to methods for sequencing cell-free DNA, identifying CNVs, SNVs, indels and fusions in cell-free DNA and techniques for enriching nucleic acid samples;

•issued patents and patent applications relating to detecting and monitoring cancer and other diseases by determining genetic variations in biological samples; and

•issued patents and patent applications relating to early-stage cancer detection.

Issued U.S. patents and their international counterparts currently in our patent portfolio that relate to various aspects of our technology and products are expected to expire between 2026 and 2039.

We also bolster our proprietary technology by acquiring or in-licensing technologies developed by third parties. While we developed our digital sequencing platform internally, we believe the technologies we in-licensed from third parties, which mostly relate to improvements to next-generation sequencing technologies, are potentially valuable and of possible strategic importance to us or our competitors. Under some of our in-license agreements, we are obligated to pay low single-digit percentage running royalties on net sales of the product or service where the licensed technology is used in, subject to minimum annual royalties or fees for certain of the in-license agreements.

Our customers and partners recognize us as being a leader in the liquid biopsy field. Thus, just as patent and trade secret protection is essential to protecting our technology, we believe that it is equally as important for us to protect our brand and identity. We have filed for trademark protection in our name, logo and products globally, in the United States, Australia, South America, Europe and Asia.

We intend to pursue additional intellectual property protection to the extent we believe it would advance our business objectives. Despite our efforts to protect our intellectual property rights, however, we may not be successful and our intellectual property rights may be invalidated, circumvented or challenged and found unenforceable. In addition, laws of various foreign countries where our products are or expected to be sold may not protect our intellectual property rights to the same extent as laws in the United States.

We also rely on trade secrets, including know-how, to protect our unpatented technology and other proprietary information, and to maintain and strengthen our competitive position. We have determined that certain technologies, such as aspects of our sample preparation methods and some bioinformatic analysis techniques, are better kept as trade secrets. To mitigate the chance of trade secret misappropriation, it is our policy to enter into nondisclosure and confidentiality agreements with parties who have access to our trade secrets, such as our employees, collaborators, outside scientific collaborators, consultants, advisors and other third parties. We also enter into invention disclosure and assignment agreements with our employees and consultants that obligate them to assign to us any inventions they have developed while working for us.

Government regulations

Federal and state laboratory licensing requirements

Under CLIA, a laboratory is any facility that performs laboratory testing on specimens derived from humans for the purpose of providing information for the diagnosis, prevention or treatment of disease, or the impairment of or assessment of health. CLIA requires that a laboratory hold a certificate applicable to the type of laboratory examinations it performs and that it complies with, among other things, standards covering operations, personnel, facilities administration, quality systems and proficiency testing, which are intended to ensure, among other things, that clinical laboratory testing services are accurate, reliable and timely.

To renew our CLIA certificate, we are subject to survey and inspection every two years to assess compliance with program standards. Because we are a CAP accredited laboratory, CMS does not perform this survey and inspection and relies on our CAP survey and inspection. We also may be subject to additional unannounced inspections. Laboratories performing high complexity testing are required to meet more stringent requirements than laboratories performing less complex tests. In addition, a laboratory that is certified as “high complexity” under CLIA may develop, manufacture, validate and use proprietary tests referred to as LDTs. CLIA requires analytical validation including accuracy, precision, specificity, sensitivity and establishment of a reference range for any LDT used in clinical testing. The regulatory and compliance standards applicable to any testing we perform may change over time and any such changes could have a material effect on our business.

CLIA provides that a state may adopt laboratory regulations that are more stringent than those under federal law, and a number of states have implemented their own more stringent laboratory regulatory requirements. For example, state laws may require that nonresident laboratories, or out-of-state laboratories, maintain an in-state laboratory license to perform tests on samples from patients who reside in that state. As a condition of state licensure, these state laws may require that laboratory personnel meet certain qualifications, specify certain quality control procedures or facility requirements or prescribe record maintenance requirements. Because our laboratory is located in the State of California, we are required to and do maintain a California state laboratory license. We maintain a current license with NYSDOH for our laboratory. In addition, our laboratory is licensed in a few states where nonresident laboratories are required to obtain state laboratory licenses under certain circumstances, including Florida, Maryland, Pennsylvania and Rhode Island. Other states may currently have or adopt similar licensure requirements in the future, which may require us to modify, delay or stop its operations in those states.

Failure to comply with CLIA certification and state clinical laboratory licensure requirements may result in a range of enforcement actions, including certificate or license suspension, limitation, or revocation, directed plan of action, onsite monitoring, civil monetary penalties, criminal sanctions, and revocation of the laboratory’s approval to receive Medicare and Medicaid payment for its services, as well as significant adverse publicity.

CLIA and state laws and regulations, operating together, sometimes limit the ability of laboratories to offer consumer-initiated testing (also known as “direct access testing”). CLIA certified laboratories are permitted to perform testing only upon the order of an “authorized person,” defined as an individual authorized under state law to order tests or receive test results, or both. Many states do not permit persons other than licensed healthcare providers to order tests. We currently do not offer direct access testing and our CLIA tests may only be ordered by authorized healthcare providers.

Regulatory framework for medical devices in the United States

Pursuant to its authority under the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act, or the FDCA, the FDA has jurisdiction over medical devices, which are defined to include, among other things, in vitro diagnostic devices, or IVDs. The FDA regulates, among other things, the research, design, development, pre-clinical and clinical testing, manufacturing, safety, effectiveness, packaging, labeling, storage, recordkeeping, pre-market clearance or approval, adverse event reporting, marketing, advertising and promotion activities, sales, distribution and import and export of medical devicesto ensure that medical devices distributed domestically are safe and effective for their intended uses and otherwise meet the requirements of the FDCA. Unless an exemption applies, each new or significantly modified medical device we seek to commercially distribute in the United States will require either a premarket notification to the FDA requesting permission for commercial distribution under Section 510(k) of the FDCA, also referred to as a 510(k) clearance, or approval from the FDA of a premarket approval application, or PMA. Both the 510(k) clearance and PMA processes can be resource intensive, expensive, and lengthy, and require payment of significant user fees.

Device classification

Under the FDCA, medical devices are classified into one of three classes-Class I, Class II or Class III-depending on the degree of risk associated with each medical device and the extent of control needed to provide reasonable assurances with respect to safety and effectiveness.

Class I includes devices with the lowest risk to the patient and are those for which safety and effectiveness can be reasonably assured by adherence to a set of FDA regulations, referred to as the General Controls for Medical Devices, which require compliance with the applicable portions of the FDA’s quality system regulation, or QSR, facility registration and product listing, reporting of adverse events and malfunctions, and appropriate, truthful and non-misleading labeling and promotional materials. Some Class I devices also require premarket clearance by the FDA through the 510(k) premarket notification process described below. Most Class I products are exempt from the premarket notification requirements.

Class II devices are those that are subject to the General Controls, as well as special controls as deemed necessary by the FDA to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device. These special controls can include performance standards, patient registries, FDA guidance documents and post-market surveillance. Most Class II devices are subject to premarket review and clearance by the FDA. Premarket review and clearance by the FDA for Class II devices is accomplished through the 510(k) premarket notification process.

Class III devices include devices deemed by the FDA to pose the greatest risk such as life-supporting or life-sustaining devices, or implantable devices, in addition to those deemed novel and not substantially equivalent following the 510(k) process. The safety and effectiveness of Class III devices cannot be reasonably assured solely by the General Controls and special controls described above. Therefore, these devices are subject to the PMA process, which is generally more costly and time-consuming than the 510(k) process. As part of the PMA process, the applicant must submit data and information demonstrating reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use to the FDA’s satisfaction. Accordingly, a PMA typically includes, but is not limited to, extensive technical information regarding device design and development, pre-clinical and clinical study data, manufacturing information, labeling and financial disclosure information for the clinical investigators in device studies. A PMA must also provide valid scientific evidence that demonstrates to the FDA’s satisfaction a reasonable assurance of the safety and effectiveness of the device for its intended use.

The 510(k) clearance process

Under the 510(k) clearance process, the manufacturer must submit to the FDA a premarket notification, demonstrating that the device is “substantially equivalent” to a legally marketed predicate device. A predicate device is a legally marketed device that is not subject to a PMA, i.e., a device that was legally marketed prior to May 28, 1976 (pre-amendments device) and for which a PMA is not required, a device that has been reclassified from Class III to Class II or I, or a device that was previously found substantially equivalent through the 510(k) process. 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 substantial equivalence.

After a 510(k) premarket notification is submitted, the FDA determines whether to accept it for substantive review. If it lacks necessary information for substantive review, the FDA will refuse to accept the 510(k) notification. If it is accepted for filing, the FDA begins a substantive review. By statute, the FDA is required to complete its review of a 510(k) notification within 90 days of receiving the 510(k) notification. As a practical matter, clearance often takes longer, and clearance is never assured. Although many 510(k) premarket notifications are cleared without clinical data, the FDA may require further information, including clinical data, to make a determination regarding substantial equivalence, which may significantly prolong the review process. If the FDA agrees that the device is substantially equivalent, it will grant clearance to commercially market the device.

If the FDA determines that the device is not “substantially equivalent” to a predicate device, or if the device is automatically classified into Class III, the device sponsor must then fulfill the much more rigorous pre-marketing requirements of the PMA approval process, or seek reclassification of the device through the de novo process. The de novo classification process is an alternate pathway to classify medical devices that are automatically classified into Class III but which are low to moderate risk. A manufacturer can submit a petition for direct de novo review if the manufacturer is unable to identify an appropriate predicate device and the new device or new use of the device

presents a moderate or low risk. De novo classification may also be available after receipt of a “not substantially equivalent” letter following submission of a 510(k) to FDA.

After a device receives 510(k) clearance, any modification that could significantly affect its safety or effectiveness, or that would constitute a new or major change in its intended use, will require a new 510(k) clearance or, depending on the modification, could require a PMA or de novo request. The FDA requires each manufacturer to determine whether the proposed change requires a new submission in the first instance, but the FDA can review any such decision and disagree with a manufacturer’s determination. Many minor modifications are accomplished by a letter-to-file in which the manufacture documents the change in an internal letter-to-file. The letter-to-file is in lieu of submitting a new 510(k) to obtain clearance for such change. The FDA can always review these letters to file in an inspection. If the FDA disagrees with a manufacturer’s determination regarding whether a new premarket submission is required for the modification of an existing 510(k)-cleared device, the FDA can require the manufacturer to cease marketing and/or recall the modified device until 510(k) clearance or approval of a PMA is obtained or a de novo request is granted. In addition, in these circumstances, the FDA can impose significant regulatory fines or penalties for failure to submit the requisite application(s).

In addition, over the last several years, the FDA has proposed reforms to its 510(k) clearance process, and such proposals could include increased requirements for clinical data and a longer review period, or could make it more difficult for manufacturers to utilize the 510(k) clearance process for their products.For example, in November 2018, FDA officials announced steps that the FDA intended 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. These proposals have not yet been finalized or adopted, and the FDA may work with Congress to implement such proposals through legislation.

In September 2019, the FDA issued revised final guidance describing an optional “safety and performance based” premarket review pathway for manufacturers of “certain, well-understood device types” to demonstrate substantial equivalence under the 510(k) clearance pathway by showing that such device meets objective safety and performance criteria established by the FDA, thereby obviating the need for manufacturers to compare the safety and performance of their medical devices to specific predicate devices in the clearance process. The FDA has developed and maintain a list device types appropriate for the “safety and performance based” pathway and continues to develop product-specific guidance documents that identify the performance criteria for each such device type, as well as recommended testing methods, where feasible.

The PMA process

We currently market our Guardant360 CDx test pursuant to an approved PMA. The PMA process is more demanding than the 510(k) premarket notification process. In a PMA, the manufacturer must demonstrate that the device is safe and effective, and the PMA must be supported by extensive data, including data from preclinical studies and human clinical studies. The PMA must also contain a full description of the device and its components, a full description of the methods, facilities, and controls used for manufacturing, and proposed labeling. Following receipt of a PMA, the FDA conducts an administrative review to determine whether the application is sufficiently complete to permit a substantive review. If it is not, the agency will refuse to file the PMA. If it is, the FDA will accept the application for filing and begin the review. The FDA has 180 days to review a filed PMA, although the review of an application more often occurs over a significantly longer period of time. During this review period, the FDA may request additional information or clarification of information already provided and may issue a major deficiency letter to the applicant, requesting the applicant’s response to deficiencies communicated by the FDA.

Before approving or denying a PMA, an FDA advisory committee may review the PMA at a public meeting and provide the FDA with the committee’s recommendation on whether the FDA should approve the submission, approve it with specific conditions, or not approve it. The FDA is not bound by the recommendations of an advisory committee, but it considers such recommendations carefully when making decisions.

Prior to approval of a PMA, the FDA may conduct inspections of the clinical study data and clinical study sites, as well as inspections of the manufacturing facility and processes. Overall, the FDA review of a PMA generally takes between one and three years but may take significantly longer.

If the FDA evaluation of a PMA is favorable, the FDA will issue either an approval order, or an approvable letter, the latter of which usually contains a number of conditions that must be met in order to secure final approval of the

PMA. When and if those conditions have been fulfilled to the satisfaction of the FDA, the agency will issue a PMA approval letter authorizing commercial marketing of the device, subject to the conditions of approval and the limitations established in the approval letter. If the FDA’s evaluation of a PMA or manufacturing facilities is not favorable, the FDA will deny approval of the PMA or issue a not approvable letter. The FDA may also determine that additional tests or clinical studies are necessary, in which case the PMA approval may be delayed for several months or years while the studies are conducted and data is submitted in an amendment to the PMA, or the PMA is withdrawn and resubmitted when the data are available. The PMA process can be expensive, uncertain and lengthy and a number of devices for which the FDA approval has been sought by other companies have never been approved for marketing.

In approving a PMA, as a condition of approval, the FDA may 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 or longer term safety and effectiveness data for the device. The FDA may also approve a PMA with other post-approval conditions intended to ensure the safety and effectiveness of the device, such as restrictions on labeling, promotion, sale, distribution and use. New PMAs or PMA supplements may also be required for modifications to approved diagnostic tests, including modifications to manufacturing processes, device labeling and device design, based on the findings of post-approval studies.Failure to comply with the conditions of approval can result in material adverse enforcement action, including withdrawal of the approval.

Certain changes to an approved device, such as changes in manufacturing facilities, methods, or quality control procedures, or changes in the design performance specifications, which could affect the safety or effectiveness of the device, require submission of a PMA supplement. PMA supplements often require submission of the same type of information as a PMA, except that the supplement is limited to information needed to support any changes from the device covered by the original PMA and may not require as extensive clinical data or the convening of an advisory panel. Certain other changes to an approved device require the submission of a new PMA, such as when the design change causes a different intended use, mode of operation, and technical basis of operation, or when the design change is so significant that a new generation of the device will be developed, and the data that were submitted with the original PMA are not applicable for the change in demonstrating a reasonable assurance of safety and effectiveness.

The IDE process

Clinical studies are almost always required to support a PMA or a de novo request, and are sometimes required to support 510(k) submissions. All clinical investigations of devices to determine safety and effectiveness must be conducted in accordance with the FDA’s investigational device exemption, or IDE, regulations which govern investigational device labeling, prohibit promotion of the investigational device, and specify an array of recordkeeping, reporting and monitoring responsibilities of study sponsors and study investigators. If the device presents a “significant risk” to human health, as defined by the FDA, the FDA requires the device sponsor to submit an IDE application to the FDA, which must become effective prior to commencing human clinical studies. If the device under evaluation does not present a significant risk to human health, then the device sponsor is not required to submit an IDE application to the FDA before initiating human clinical studies, but must still comply with abbreviated IDE requirements when conducting such studies. A significant risk device is one that presents a potential for serious risk to the health, safety or welfare of a patient and either is implanted, used in supporting or sustaining human life, substantially important in diagnosing, curing, mitigating or treating disease or otherwise preventing impairment of human health, or otherwise presents a potential for serious risk to a subject. An IDE application must be supported by appropriate data, such as animal and laboratory test results, showing that it is safe to test the device in humans and that the testing protocol is scientifically sound. The IDE will automatically become effective 30 days after receipt by the FDA unless the FDA notifies the company that the investigation may not begin. If the FDA determines that there are deficiencies or other concerns with an IDE for which it requires modification, the FDA may permit a clinical study to proceed under a conditional approval.

Regardless of the degree of risk presented by the medical device, clinical studies must be approved by, and conducted under the oversight of, an Institutional Review Board, or IRB, for each clinical site. The IRB is responsible for the initial and continuing review of the IDE, and may pose additional requirements for the conduct of the study. If an IDE application is approved by the FDA and one or more IRBs, human clinical studies may begin at a specific number of investigational sites with a specific number of patients, as approved by the FDA. If the device presents a non-significant risk to the patient, a sponsor may begin the clinical study after obtaining approval for the study by one or more IRBs without separate approval from the FDA, but must still follow abbreviated IDE

requirements, such as monitoring the investigation, ensuring that the investigators obtain informed consent, and labeling and record-keeping requirements. Acceptance of an IDE application for review does not guarantee that the FDA will allow the IDE to become effective and, if it does become effective, the FDA may or may not determine that the data derived from the studies support the safety and effectiveness of the device or warrant the continuation of clinical studies. An IDE supplement must be submitted to, and approved by, the FDA before a sponsor or investigator may make a change to the investigational plan that may affect its scientific soundness, study plan or the rights, safety or welfare of human subjects.

During a study, the sponsor is required to comply with the applicable FDA requirements, including, for example, study monitoring, selecting clinical investigators and providing them with the investigational plan, ensuring IRB review, adverse event reporting, record keeping and prohibitions on the promotion of investigational devices or on making safety or effectiveness claims for them. The clinical investigators in the clinical study are also subject to FDA’s regulations and must obtain patient informed consent, rigorously follow the investigational plan and study protocol, control the disposition of the investigational device, and comply with all reporting and recordkeeping requirements. Additionally, after a study begins, the sponsor, the FDA or the IRB could suspend or terminate a clinical study at any time for various reasons, including a belief that the risks to study subjects outweigh the anticipated benefits.

Expedited development and review programs

Following passage of the 21st Century Cures Act, the FDA implemented the Breakthrough Devices Program, which is a voluntary program offered to manufacturers of certain medical devices and device-led combination products that may provide for more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions. The goal of the program is to provide patients and health care providers with more timely access to qualifying devices by expediting their development, assessment and review, while preserving the statutory standards for PMA approval, 510(k) clearance and de novo classification. The program is available to medical devices that meet certain eligibility criteria, including that the device provides more effective treatment or diagnosis of life-threatening or irreversibly debilitating diseases or conditions, and that the device meets one of the following criteria: (i) the device represents a breakthrough technology, (ii) no approved or cleared alternatives exist, (iii) the device offers significant advantages over existing approved or cleared alternatives, or (iv) the availability of the device is in the best interest of patients. Breakthrough Device designation provides certain benefits to device developers, including more interactive and timely communications with FDA staff, use of postmarket data collection, when scientifically appropriate, to facilitate expedited and efficient development and review of the device, opportunities for efficient and flexible clinical study design, and prioritized review of premarket submissions.

FDA regulation of laboratory developed tests

Although the FDA has statutory authority to assure that medical devices, including IVDs, are safe and effective for their intended uses, the FDA has generally exercised its enforcement discretion and not enforced applicable regulations with respect to in vitro diagnostics that are designed, manufactured, and used within a single laboratory for use only in that laboratory. We believe certain of our diagnostic testing products qualify as LDTs subject to the FDA’s enforcement discretion.

Legislative and administrative proposals to clarify or amend FDA’s oversight of LDTs have been introduced in recent years and we expect that new legislative and administrative proposals regarding the regulation of LDTs will continue to be introduced from time to time. It is possible that legislation could be enacted into law or regulations or guidance could be issued by the FDA which may result in new or increased regulatory requirements for us to continue to offer our LDTs or to develop and introduce new tests as LDTs. For example, in recent years, FDA has stated its intention to modify its enforcement discretion policy with respect to LDTs. Specifically, on July 31, 2014, the FDA notified Congress of its intent to modify, in a risk-based manner, its policy of enforcement discretion with respect to LDTs. On October 3, 2014, the FDA issued two draft guidance documents titled “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),” or the Reporting Guidance. The Framework Guidance stated that FDA intends to modify its policy of enforcement discretion with respect to LDTs in a risk-based manner consistent with the classification of medical devices generally in Classes I through III. The Reporting Guidance would have further enabled FDA to collect information regarding the LDTs currently being offered for clinical use through a notification process, as well as to enforce its regulations for reporting safety issues and collecting information on any known or suspected adverse events related to the use of an LDT.

On November 18, 2016, the FDA announced that it would not finalize either guidance document to allow for further public discussion on an appropriate oversight approach to LDTs and to give Congressional authorizing committees the opportunity to develop a legislative solution, and the FDA issued a discussion paper on possible approaches to LDT regulation in January 2017. The FDA could ultimately modify its current approach to LDTs in a way that would subject LDTs to additional regulatory requirements. Moreover, legislative measures could likewise result in a change to the approach to FDA’s regulation over LDTs, including a requirement for premarket review of LDTs, among other things.

Research use only or investigational use only devices

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. An RUO device is an IVD that is in the laboratory research phase of development. RUO devices must bear prominent labeling stating: “For Research Use Only. Not for use in diagnostic procedures.” An IUO device is an IVD that in the product testing phase of development. An IUO device must bear prominent labeling stating: “For Investigational Use Only. The performance characteristics of this product have not been established.” Neither RUO or IUO devices may be used in clinical practice, and such devices cannot be advertised or promoted for clinical or diagnostic purposes. Devices that are intended for RUO or IUO and are properly labeled as RUO or IUO are exempt from compliance with the FDA requirements discussed above, including the approval or clearance and QSR requirements. A device labeled RUO or IUO but intended to be used diagnostically may be viewed by the FDA as adulterated and misbranded under the FDCA and is subject to FDA enforcement activities. The FDA may consider the totality of the circumstances surrounding distribution and use of an RUO or IUO device, including how the device is marketed, when determining its intended use.

FDA Regulation of Companion Diagnostics

If safe and effective use of drug or biologic depends on an in vitro diagnostic, then the FDA may require approval or clearance of that diagnostic, known as a companion diagnostic, at the same time that the FDA approves the therapeutic product. In August 2014, the FDA issued final guidance clarifying the requirements that will apply to approval of therapeutic products and in vitro companion diagnostics. According to the guidance, if the FDA determines that a companion diagnostic device is essential to the safe and effective use of a novel therapeutic product for that indication, the FDA may will not approve the drug or new indication if the companion diagnostic device is not also approved or cleared for that indication. Approval or clearance of the companion diagnostic device will ensure that the device has been adequately evaluated and has adequate performance characteristics in the intended population.

Our Guardant 360 CDx test has been approved by the FDA for use as a companion diagnostic to identify NSCLC patients who may respond to certain therapies marketed by our biopharmaceutical customers.

Pervasive and continuing FDA regulation

After a device enters commercial distribution, numerous regulatory requirements continue to apply. These include:

•establishment registration and device listing with the FDA;

•the FDA’s QSR, which requires manufacturers, including third-party manufacturers, to follow stringent design, testing, production, control, supplier/contractor selection, complaint handling, documentation and other quality assurance procedures during all aspects of the manufacturing process;

•labeling regulations, unique device identification requirements and FDA prohibitions against the promotion of products for uncleared, unapproved or off-label uses;

•advertising and promotion requirements;

•restrictions on sale, distribution or use of a device;

•PMA annual reporting requirements;

•PMA approval of product modifications, or the potential for new 510(k) clearances for certain modifications to 510(k)-cleared devices;

•medical device reporting regulations, which require that manufacturers report to the FDA if their device may have caused or contributed to a death or serious injury or malfunctioned in a way that would likely cause or contribute to a death or serious injury if the malfunction were to recur;

•medical device correction and removal reporting regulations, which require that manufacturers report to the FDA field corrections and product recalls or removals if undertaken to reduce a risk to health posed by the device or to remedy a violation of the FDCA that may present a risk to health;

•recall requirements, including a mandatory recall if there is a reasonable probability that the device would cause serious adverse health consequences or death;

•an order of repair, replacement or refund;

•device tracking requirements; and

•post-market surveillance regulations, which apply when necessary to protect the public health or to provide additional safety and effectiveness data for the device.

The FDA has broad post-market and regulatory enforcement powers. Medical device manufacturers are subject to unannounced inspections by the FDA and other state, local and foreign regulatory authorities to assess compliance with the QSR and other applicable regulations, and these inspections may include the manufacturing facilities of any suppliers. Failure to comply with applicable regulatory requirements can result in enforcement action by the FDA, which may include sanctions such as: warning letters, fines, injunctions, consent decrees and civil penalties; unanticipated expenditures, repair, replacement, refunds, recall or seizure of our products; operating restrictions, partial suspension or total shutdown of production; the FDA’s refusal of our requests for 510(k) clearance or premarket approval of new products, new intended uses or modifications to existing products; the FDA’s refusal to issue certificates to foreign governments needed to export products for sale in other countries; and withdrawing 510(k) clearance or premarket approvals that have already been granted and criminal prosecution.

Foreign regulation of medical devices

Medical devices (including in vitro diagnostic medical devices) are subject to extensive regulation, such as premarket review, marketing authorization or certification, by similar agencies or notified bodies in other countries. Regulatory requirements and approval or certification processes are not harmonized and vary from one country to another. International regulators and notified bodies are independent and not bound by the findings of the FDA.

Regulation of Medical Devices in the EU

The EU has adopted specific directives and regulations regulating the design, manufacture, clinical investigations, conformity assessment, labeling and adverse event reporting for medical devices (including in vitro diagnostic medical devices).

In the EU, there is currently no premarket government review of medical devices (including in vitro diagnostic medical devices). However, the EU requires that all in vitro diagnostic medical devices placed on the market in the EU must meet the essential requirements of the EU In Vitro Diagnostic Medical Devices Directive (Directive 98/79/EC), or IVDD, including the requirement that an in vitro diagnostic medical device must be designed and manufactured in such a way that it will not compromise the clinical condition or safety of patients, or the safety and health of users and others. In addition, the device must achieve the performances intended by the manufacturer and be designed, manufactured, and packaged in a suitable manner. The European Commission has adopted various standards applicable to medical devices. There are also harmonized standards relating to design and manufacture. While not mandatory, compliance with these standards is viewed as the easiest way to satisfy the essential requirements as a practical matter as it creates a rebuttable presumption that the device satisfies that essential requirement.

Compliance with the essential requirements of the IVDD is a prerequisite for European conformity marking, or CE mark, without which in vitro diagnostic medical devices cannot be marketed or sold in the EU. To demonstrate compliance with the essential requirements laid down in Annex I to the IVDD, medical device manufacturers must undergo a conformity assessment procedure, which varies according to the type of medical device and its (risk) classification. As a general rule, demonstration of conformity of in vitro diagnostic medical devices and their manufacturers with the essential requirements must be based, among other things, on the evaluation of clinical data supporting the safety and performance of the products during normal conditions of use. Specifically, a manufacturer must demonstrate that the device achieves its intended performance during normal conditions of use, that the known and foreseeable risks, and any adverse events, are minimized and acceptable when weighed against the benefits of its intended performance, and that any claims made about the performance and safety of the device are supported by suitable evidence. Except for (general) in vitro diagnostic medical devices (i.e., all in vitro diagnostic medical devices other than those covered by Annex II to the IVDD and in vitro diagnostic medical devices for self-testing),

where the manufacturer can self-declare the conformity of its products with the essential requirements, a conformity assessment procedure requires the intervention of a notified body. Notified bodies are independent organizations designated by EU member states to assess the conformity of devices before being placed on the market. A notified body would typically audit and examine a product’s technical dossiers and the manufacturers’ quality system (notified body must presume that quality systems which implement the relevant harmonized standards – which is ISO 13485:2016 for Quality Management Systems – conform to these requirements). If satisfied that the relevant product conforms to the relevant essential requirements, the notified body issues a certificate of conformity, which the manufacturer uses as a basis for its own declaration of conformity. The manufacturer may then apply the CE mark to the device, which allows the device to be placed on the market throughout the EU. We have obtained CE mark for our Guardant360 CDx test and the non-CDx blood collection kit.

Throughout the term of the certificate of conformity, the manufacturer will be subject to periodic surveillance audits to verify continued compliance with the applicable requirements. In particular, there will be a new audit by the notified body before it will renew the relevant certificate(s).

All manufacturers placing in vitro diagnostic medical devices on the market in the EU must comply with the EU medical device vigilance system. Under this system, incidents must be reported to the relevant authorities of the EU member states, and manufacturers are required to take Field Safety Corrective Actions, or FSCAs, to reduce a risk of death or serious deterioration in the state of health associated with the use of an in vitro diagnostic medical device that is already placed on the market. An incident is defined as any malfunction or deterioration in the characteristics and/or performance of a device, as well as any inadequacy in the labeling or the instructions for use which, directly or indirectly, might lead to or might have led to the death of a patient or user or of other persons or to a serious deterioration in their state of health. An FSCA may include the recall, modification, exchange, destruction or retrofitting of the device. FSCAs must be communicated by the manufacturer or its legal representative to its customers and/or to the end users of the device through field safety notices.

The advertising and promotion of in vitro diagnostic medical devices is subject to some general principles set forth by EU directives. According to the IVDD, only devices that are CE marked may be marketed and advertised in the EU in accordance with their intended purpose. Directive 2006/114/EC concerning misleading and comparative advertising and Directive 2005/29/EC on unfair commercial practices, while not specific to the advertising of medical devices, also apply to the advertising thereof and contain general rules, for example requiring that advertisements are evidenced, balanced and not misleading. Specific requirements are defined at national level. EU member states laws related to the advertising and promotion of medical devices (including in vitro diagnostic medical devices), which vary between jurisdictions, may limit or restrict the advertising and promotion of products to the general public and may impose limitations on promotional activities with healthcare professionals.

Many EU member states have adopted specific anti-gift statutes that further limit commercial practices for medical devices (including in vitro diagnostic medical devices), in particular vis-à-vis healthcare professionals and organizations. Additionally, there has been a recent trend of increased regulation of payments and transfers of value provided to healthcare professionals or entities and many EU member states have adopted national “Sunshine Acts” which impose reporting and transparency requirements (often on an annual basis), similar to the requirements in the United States, on medical device manufacturers. Certain countries also mandate implementation of commercial compliance programs.

In the EU, regulatory authorities have the power to carry out announced and, if necessary, unannounced inspections of companies, as well as suppliers and/or sub-contractors and, where necessary, the facilities of professional users. Failure to comply with regulatory requirements (as applicable) could require time and resources to respond to the regulatory authorities’ observations and to implement corrective and preventive actions, as appropriate. Regulatory authorities have broad compliance and enforcement powers and if such issues cannot be resolved to their satisfaction can take a variety of actions, including untitled or warning letters, fines, consent decrees, injunctions, or civil or criminal penalties.

The EU regulatory landscape concerning medical devices is evolving. On April 5, 2017 Regulation (EU) 2017/746 of the European Parliament and of the Council on in vitro diagnostic medical devices and repealing Directive 98/79/EC and Commission Decision 2010/227/EU, or IVDR, was adopted to establish a modernized and more robust EU legislative framework, with the aim of ensuring better protection of public health and patient safety. Unlike the IVDD, the IVDR is directly applicable in all EU member states without the need for member states to implement into national law. This aims at reducing the risk of discrepancies in interpretation across the different European markets. On October 14, 2021, the European Commission proposed a “progressive” roll-out of the IVDR to prevent

disruption in the supply of in vitro diagnostic medical devices. Consequently, if the European Parliament and Council adopt the proposed regulation, the IVDR will fully apply on May 26, 2022 but there will be a tiered system extending the grace period for many devices (depending on their risk classification) before they have to be fully compliant with the regulation.

The IVDR will become applicable five years after publication on May 26, 2022. Once applicable, the IVDR will among other things:

•strengthen the rules on placing devices on the market and reinforce surveillance once they are available;

•establish explicit provisions on manufacturers’ responsibilities for the follow-up of the quality, performance and safety of devices placed on the market;

•establish explicit provisions on importers’ and distributors’ obligations and responsibilities;

•impose an obligation to identify a responsible person who is ultimately responsible for all aspects of compliance with the requirements of the new regulation;

•improve the traceability of medical devices throughout the supply chain to the end-user or patient through the introduction of a unique identification number, to increase the ability of manufacturers and regulatory authorities to trace specific devices through the supply chain and to facilitate the prompt and efficient recall of medical devices that have been found to present a safety risk;

•set up a central database (Eudamed) to provide patients, healthcare professionals and the public with comprehensive information on products available in the EU; and

•strengthen rules for the assessment of certain high-risk devices that may have to undergo an additional check by experts before they are placed on the market.

Regulation of Companion Diagnostics

In the EU, in vitro diagnostic medical devices are regulated by the IVDD which regulates the placing on the market, the CE marking, the essential requirements, the conformity assessment procedures, the registration obligations for manufactures and devices as well as the vigilance procedure. In vitro diagnostic medical devices must comply with the requirements provided for in the IVDD, and with further requirements implemented at national level (as the case may be).

The regulation of companion diagnostics will be subject to further requirements once the IVDR will become applicable on May 26, 2022. The IVDR introduces a new classification system for companion diagnostics which are now specifically defined as diagnostic tests that support the safe and effective use of a specific medicinal product, by identifying patients that are suitable or unsuitable for treatment. Companion diagnostics will have to undergo a conformity assessment by a notified body. Before it can issue a CE certificate, the notified body must seek a scientific opinion from the European Medicines Agency, or EMA, on the suitability of the companion diagnostic to the medicinal product concerned if the medicinal product falls exclusively within the scope of the centralized procedure for the authorization of medicines, or the medicinal product is already authorized through the centralized procedure, or a marketing authorization application for the medicinal product has been submitted through the centralized procedure. For other substances, the notified body can seek the opinion from a national competent authorities or the EMA.

The aforementioned EU rules are generally applicable in the European Economic Area, or EEA, which consists of the 27 EU member states plus Norway, Liechtenstein and Iceland.

Brexit

Since January 1, 2021, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency, or MHRA, has become the sovereign regulatory authority responsible for Great Britain (i.e. England, Wales and Scotland) medical device market according to the requirements provided in the Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (SI 2002 No 618, as amended) that sought to give effect to the three pre-existing EU directives governing active implantable medical devices, general medical devices and in vitro diagnostic medical devices whereas Northern Ireland continues to be governed by EU rules according to the Northern Ireland Protocol. Following the end of the Brexit transitional period on January 1, 2021, new regulations require medical devices to be registered with the MHRA (but manufacturers were given a grace period of four to 12 months to comply with the new registration process) before being placed on Great Britain market. The MHRA only registers devices where the manufacturer or their United Kingdom, or UK, Responsible Person has a registered place of business in the UK. Manufacturers based outside the UK need to appoint a UK Responsible Person that has a registered place of business in the UK to register devices with the

MHRA in line with the grace periods. By July 1, 2023, in Great Britain, all medical devices will require a UKCA, or UK Conformity Assessed, mark but CE marks issued by EU notified bodies will remain valid until this time. Manufacturers may choose to use the UKCA mark on a voluntary basis until June 30, 2023. However, UKCA marking will not be recognized in the EU. The rules for placing medical devices on the market in Northern Ireland, which is part of the UK, differ from those in the rest of the UK. Compliance with this legislation is a prerequisite to be able to affix the UKCA mark to our products, without which they cannot be sold or marketed in Great Britain.

An MHRA public consultation was opened until end of November 2021 on the post-Brexit regulatory framework for medical devices and diagnostics. MHRA seeks to amend the UK Medical Devices Regulations 2002 (which are based on EU legislation, primarily the EU Medical Devices Directive 93/42/EEC and the IVDD), in particular to create a new access pathways to support innovation, create an innovative framework for regulating software and artificial intelligence, or AI, asmedical devices, reform IVD regulation, and foster sustainability through the reuse and remanufacture of medical devices. The regime is expected to come into force in July 2023, coinciding with the end of the acceptance period for EU CE marks in Great Britain, subject to appropriate transitional arrangements. The consultation indicated that the MHRA will publish guidance in relation to the changes to the regulatory framework and may rely more heavily on guidance to add flexibility to the regime.

In addition, the Trade Deal between the UK and the EU generally provides for cooperation and exchange of information between the parties in the areas of product safety and compliance, including market surveillance, enforcement activities and measures, standardization-related activities, exchanges of officials, and coordinated product recalls. As such, processes for compliance and reporting should reflect requirements from regulatory authorities.

Under the terms of the Northern Ireland Protocol, Northern Ireland follows EU rules on medical devices and devices marketed in Northern Ireland require assessment according to the EU regulatory regime. Such assessment may be conducted by an EU notified body, in which case a CE mark is required before placing the device on the market in the EU or Northern Ireland. Alternatively, if a UK notified body conducts such assessment, a ‘UKNI’ mark is applied and the device may only be placed on the market in Northern Ireland and not the EU.

Other foreign regulations

In February 2021, Guardant Health Japan, an affiliate of the Joint Venture with SoftBank, submitted an application to the MHLW, for regulatory approval of Guardant360 CDx. In December 2021, the MHLW granted regulatory approval of Guardant360 CDx in patients with advanced solid cancers. The Guardant360 CDx test was also granted approval as a companion diagnostic to identify patients with microsatellite instability-high (MSI-High) solid tumors who may benefit from Keytruda® (pembrolizumab) and patients with MSI-High advanced colorectal cancer who may benefit from Opdivo® (nivolumab). The MHLW additionally granted regulatory approval of the Guardant360 CDx liquid biopsy test as a companion diagnostic for identifying patients with metastatic NSCL cancer who may benefit from treatment with LUMAKRASTM (sotorasib), a KRAS G12C inhibitor developed and manufactured by Amgen.

To be sold in Japan, most medical devices must undergo thorough safety examinations and demonstrate medical efficacy before they are granted approval, or “shonin.” The Japanese government, through the MHLW, regulates medical devices under the Pharmaceutical Affairs Law, or PAL. Oversight for medical devices is conducted with participation by the Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices Agency, or PMDA, a quasi-government organization performing many of the review functions for the MHLW. Penalties for a company’s noncompliance with PAL can be severe, including revocation or suspension of a company’s business license and criminal sanctions. The MHLW and PMDA also assess the quality management systems of the manufacturer and product conformity to the requirements of the PAL. We are subject to compliance inspections by these agencies.

We will seek approvals in other countries as may be required in the future.

Federal and state fraud and abuse laws

We are subject to federal fraud and abuse laws such as the federal Anti-Kickback Statute, or AKS, the federal Eliminating Kickbacks in Recovery Act, or EKRA, the federal prohibition against physician self-referral, or Stark Law, and the federal false claims law, or the False Claims Act, or FCA. We are also subject to similar state and foreign fraud and abuse laws.

The AKS prohibits knowingly and willfully offering, paying, soliciting, or receiving remuneration, directly or indirectly, overtly or covertly, in cash or in kind, 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. 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. In addition, the government may assert that a claim including items or services resulting from an AKS violation constitutes a false or fraudulent claim for purposes of the False Claims Act.

The EKRA 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, and EKRA violations result in significant fines and/or up to 10 years in jail, separate and apart from existing AKS regulations.

The Stark Law and similar state laws, including California’s Physician Ownership and Referral Act, generally prohibit, among other things, clinical laboratories and other entities from billing a patient or any governmental or commercial payer for any diagnostic services when the physician ordering the service, or any member of such physician’s immediate family, has a direct or indirect investment interest in or compensation arrangement with us, unless the arrangement meets an exception to the prohibition.

Other federal fraud and abuse laws to which we are subject include but are not limited to the federal civil and criminal false claims laws including the FCA, which imposes liability on any person or entity that, among other things, knowingly presents, or causes to be presented, a false or fraudulent claim for payment to the federal government, and 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. Under the FCA, private citizens can bring claims on behalf of the government through qui tam actions. We must also operate within the bounds of the fraud and abuse laws of the states in which we do business which may apply to items or services reimbursed by non-governmental third-party payers, including private insurers.

In addition, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act imposes, among other things, reporting requirements on manufacturers of certain devices, drugs and biologics for certain payments and transfers of value by them and in some cases their distributors to physicians (defined to include doctors, dentists, optometrists, podiatrists and chiropractors), certain other health care providers beginning in 2022, and teaching hospitals, as well as ownership and investment interests held by physicians (as defined by the statute) and their immediate family members. Manufacturers must submit reports by the 90th day of each calendar year. Because we manufacture our own LDTs solely for use by or within our own laboratory, we believe that we are currently exempt from these reporting requirements.

Efforts to ensure that our business arrangements with third parties comply with applicable laws and regulations will involve substantial costs. If our operations are found to be in violation of any of these laws or any other governmental regulations that may apply to us, we may be subject to significant civil, criminal and administrative penalties, damages, fines, imprisonment, exclusion from government-funded healthcare programs, such as Medicare and Medicaid, disgorgement, 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 the curtailment or restructuring of our operations, any of which could adversely affect our ability to operate our business and our results of operations. If any physicians or other healthcare providers or entities with whom we do business is found to be not in compliance with applicable laws, they may be subject to criminal, civil or administrative sanctions, including exclusions from government-funded healthcare programs.

Data Privacy and Security

Under the administrative simplification provisions of the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996, or HIPAA, as amended by the Health Information Technology for Economic and Clinical Health Act, or HITECH, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, or HHS, issued regulations that establish uniform standards governing the conduct of certain electronic healthcare transactions and requirements for protecting the privacy and security of protected health information, or PHI, used or disclosed by covered entities. Covered entities and their business associates are subject to HIPAA and HITECH. Because we are a health care provider that electronically transmits health care information to payers, we are a covered entity under HIPAA. Our subcontractors

that create, receive, maintain or transmit or otherwise process PHI on our behalf must also comply with HIPAA as business associates thereunder.

HIPAA and HITECH include the privacy and security rules, breach notification requirements and electronic transaction standards. The privacy rule covers the use and disclosure of PHI by covered entities and business associates. The privacy rule generally prohibits the use or disclosure of PHI except as permitted under the rule. The rule also sets forth individual patient rights, such as the right to access or amend certain records containing his or her PHI, or to request restrictions on the use or disclosure of his or her PHI. The security rule requires covered entities and business associates to safeguard the confidentiality, integrity, and availability of electronically transmitted or stored PHI by implementing administrative, physical and technical safeguards. Under HITECH’s breach notification rule, a covered entity must notify individuals, the Secretary of the HHS, and in some circumstances, the media of breaches of unsecured PHI.

If they are found to be in violation of HIPAA as the result of a breach of unsecured PHI, a complaint about their privacy practices or an audit by HHS, entities may be subject to significant civil and criminal fines and penalties and/or additional reporting and oversight obligations if such entities are required to enter into a resolution agreement and corrective action plan with HHS to settle allegations of HIPAA non-compliance.

In addition, we may be subject to state data privacy, security and data breach notification laws, which may govern the collection, use, disclosure and protection of health-related and other personal information. State laws may be more stringent, broader in scope or offer greater individual rights with respect to PHI than HIPAA. California, for example, has enacted the Confidentiality of Medical Information Act, which sets forth standards in addition to HIPAA and HITECH with which all California health care providers like us must abide. Further, laws in all 50 states require businesses to provide notice to individuals whose personally identifiable information has been disclosed as a result of a data breach. The laws are not consistent, and compliance in the event of a widespread data breach is costly. States are also constantly amending existing laws, and creating new data privacy and security laws, requiring attention to frequently changing regulatory requirements. For example, the California Consumer Privacy Act, or the CCPA, went into effect January 1, 2020. The CCPA contains certain disclosure obligations for businesses that collect personal information about California residents and affords those individuals new rights relating to their personal information that may affect our ability to use personal information. The CCPA authorizes private lawsuits to recover statutory damages for certain data breaches. Although the CCPA exempts PHI regulated by HIPAA and certain data regarding clinical studies, the CCPA, to the extent applicable to our business and operations, may increase our compliance costs and potential liability with respect to other personal information we maintain about California residents. Further, the California Privacy Rights Act, or the CPRA, recently passed in California. The CPRA will impose additional data protection obligations on covered businesses, including additional consumer rights processes, limitations on data uses, new audit requirements for higher risk data, and opt outs for certain uses of sensitive data. It will also create a new California data protection agency authorized to issue substantive regulations and could result in increased privacy and information security enforcement. The majority of the provisions will go into effect on January 1, 2023, and additional compliance investment and potential business process changes may be required. . Similar laws have passed in Virginia and Colorado, and have been proposed in other states and at the federal level, reflecting a trend toward more stringent privacy legislation in the United States. Complying with these various state laws and regulations, which may differ from state to state, requires significant resources and may complicate our compliance efforts. Failure to comply with these laws, where applicable, can result in the imposition of significant civil and/or criminal penalties and private litigation. Privacy and security laws, regulations, and other obligations are constantly evolving, may conflict with each other to make compliance efforts more challenging, and can result in investigations, proceedings, or actions that lead to significant penalties and restrictions on data processing.

U.S. healthcare reform

In the United States, there have been a number of legislative and regulatory changes at the federal and state levels which seek to reduce healthcare costs and improve the quality of healthcare. For example, 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. The ACA substantially changed the way healthcare is financed by both commercial and government payers and contains a number of provisions expected to impact our business and operations, some of which in ways we cannot currently predict, including those governing enrollment in federal and state healthcare programs, reimbursement changes and fraud and abuse.

Since its enactment, there have been efforts to repeal all or part of the ACA. On June 17, 2021, the U.S. Supreme Court dismissed the most recent judicial challenge to the ACA brought by several states without specifically ruling

on the constitutionality of the ACA. Thus, the ACA will remain in effect in its current form. Further, prior to the U.S. Supreme Court ruling, President Biden issued an executive order to initiate a special enrollment period from February 15, 2021 through August 15, 2021 for purposes of obtaining health insurance coverage through the ACA marketplace. The executive order also instructed certain governmental agencies to review and reconsider their existing policies and rules that limit access to healthcare, including among others, reexamining Medicaid demonstration projects and waiver programs that include work requirements, and policies that create unnecessary barriers to obtaining access to health insurance coverage through Medicaid or the ACA.

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 2030, with the exception of a temporary suspension from May 1, 2020 through March 31, 2021, 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 payers to reduce costs while expanding individual healthcare benefits. Changes in healthcare coverage landscape 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 payers, including commercial and government payers.

Employees and Human Capital

Our Employees and Commitment to Diversity, Equity and Inclusion

As of December 31, 2021, we had 1,373 full-time employees, of which approximately 1,354 are in the U.S., with the remainder in Europe and Canada. We have also engaged and may continue to engage independent contractors to assist us with our operations. None of our employees are represented by a labor union or covered by a collective bargaining agreement, except as required by local laws such as in some European countries, and we have never experienced any employment-related work stoppages. We also track voluntary and involuntary turnover rates, conduct frequent employee engagement surveys, and consider relations with our employees to be good.

As part of our mission to conquer cancer, we continue to advance our environmental, social and governance efforts, including enhancing the diversity and inclusiveness of our workplace. We believe that diversity of backgrounds and ideas inspires creativity and helps us create the innovative technologies that patients need. We appreciate one another’s differences and strengths and we are proud to be an equal opportunity employer. We do not discriminate on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, gender identity, sexual orientation, age, non-disqualifying physical or mental disability, national origin, veteran status or any other basis covered by applicable law. All employment is decided on the basis of qualifications, merit, and business need. Further, we have policies in place that prohibit harassment of all kinds. We maintain an inclusive culture where all employees feel empowered to be their authentic selves. We respect and appreciate each employee’s unique perspective and experiences, and value their contribution to our mission. It is important that we celebrate, encourage and support similarities and differences to drive innovation for the benefit of our employees, patients and community.

We are proud to employ a diverse workforce that, as of December 31, 2021, was 56% racially/ethnically diverse and 55% female. For leadership positions across the company, which is defined as director level and above, 34% self-identified as racially/ethnically diverse and 38% self-identified as women. In 2021, we added two women to our Board of Directors, and as of December 31, 2021, women held 57% of the independent director seats on our Board.

Culture, Compensation and Benefits

We strive to recruit, hire and retain a talented and diverse team of people who align with our values. Our employees are supported with training and development opportunities to pursue their career paths and ensure compliance with our policies. Our compensation and benefits team strive to develop and implement policies and programs that support our business goals, maintain competitiveness, promote shared fiscal responsibility among our employees, strategically align talent within our organization and reward performance, while also managing the costs of such policies and programs. In order to ensure that we are meeting our human capital objectives, we frequently utilize employee engagement surveys to understand the effectiveness of our employee development and compensation programs and where we can improve across the company. We regularly evaluate our compensation programs with an independent compensation consultant and utilize industry benchmarking in an effort to ensure they are competitive compared to similar biotechnology and biopharmaceutical companies with which we compete for talent, as well as fair and equitable across our workforce with respect to gender, race and other personal characteristics.

We are committed to rewarding, supporting, and developing the employees who make it possible to deliver on our strategy. To that end, we offer a comprehensive total rewards package that includes market-competitive fixed and/or variable pay, broad-based equity grants and bonuses, access to medical, dental, vision and life insurance benefits, disability coverage, fertility subsidies, retirement savings plans, paid time off and family leave, caregiving support, fitness, cellphone and internet reimbursements, and mental health and other wellness benefits. In recognition of the new challenges the COVID-19 pandemic brought, we took various steps to support our employees, including providing free on-site and at-home COVID-19 tests to our employees, deep cleaning our facilities, providing personal protective equipment to our laboratory and scientific employees, implementing additional safety measures advised by health authorities, restricting business travel and site visitors and implementing remote working for all non-essential laboratory related employees. In addition, we have provided unlimited sick leave for employees who were quarantined, sick or needed to provide care for their families due to COVID-19. Further, despite the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic, we have not cut salaries or hourly rates for any employees.

Available information

Our website is located at https://guardanthealth.com. Our Annual Reports on Form 10-K, Quarterly Reports on Form 10-Q, Current Reports on Form 8-K, including their exhibits, proxy and information statements, and amendments to those reports filed or furnished pursuant to Sections 13(a), 14, and 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended, are available through the “Investors” portion of our website free of charge as soon as reasonably practicable after we electronically file such material with, or furnish it to, the SEC. Information on our website is not part of this Annual Report on Form 10-K or any of our other securities filings unless specifically incorporated herein by reference. In addition, our filings with the SEC may be accessed through the SEC’s Interactive Data Electronic Applications system at http://www.sec.gov. All statements made in any of our securities filings, including all forward-looking statements or information, are made as of the date of the document in which the statement is included, and we do not assume or undertake any obligation to update any of those statements or documents unless we are required to do so by law.

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 have experienced challenges attracting and retaining qualified personnel due to competitive labor markets and may continue to do so, and may be unable to manage our future growth effectively, all of which could make it difficult to execute our business strategy.

•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.

•Issued patents covering our products could be found invalid or unenforceable if challenged, or our patent applications may never issue. 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.

•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 have adversely impacted our supply chain and other aspects of our business, as well as our results of operations, and could continue to do so.

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, 2021, 2020 and 2019, we incurred net losses of $384.8 million, $246.3 million and $67.9 million, respectively. As of December 31, 2021, we had an accumulated deficit of $1.0 billion. 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 and 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 or certification by regulatory agencies, including the FDA, or notified bodies 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 or certification 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 certifications 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 ongoing coronavirus pandemic, boycotts, curtailment of trade and other business restrictions; and

•the effects of high inflation or other 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 2021. 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.

provided and record revenue adjustments if and when the cash subsequently received for a test differs from the revenue recorded for the test. Due to this variability and unpredictability, 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 studies;

•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.

GH US Equity

GH · 10-K · period ended 2021-12-31

Item 1. Business

Item 1A. Risk Factors

GH US Equity☆

GH · 10-K · period ended 2021-12-31

Item 1. Business

Item 1A. Risk Factors

GH US Equity