Keller Anderle Scolnick LLP get over $290 Million!
In a high-stakes Lanham Act trial in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, a federal jury delivered a decisive victory for Guardant Health Inc. against rival diagnostics company Natera Inc., awarding $292.5 million for false advertising and unfair competition. The November 2024 trial, overseen by Judge Edward M. Chen, centered on competing cancer diagnostic tests and the limits of comparative marketing in a heavily regulated healthcare market.
Guardant Health had accused Natera of orchestrating a widespread campaign to mislead clinicians and purchasers about the performance of Guardant’s Reveal™ blood-only minimal residual disease (MRD) test for colorectal cancer. Plaintiffs claimed Natera’s comparative advertisements unfairly disparaged Reveal while promoting its own Signatera™ test, creating confusion in the oncology marketplace. The jury agreed that several of Natera’s ads contained material inaccuracies that misrepresented both the capabilities of Signatera and the performance of Reveal.
The verdict’s components reflected the breadth of the harm the jury found: $75 million for corrective advertising to address the market distortion, approximately $42 million representing disgorgement of Natera’s profits attributable to the false campaign, and a substantial $175.5 million in punitive damages to punish and deter similar conduct.
Guardant Health was represented by an experienced legal team. Jennifer Keller and Chase Scolnick served as co-lead trial counsel from Keller Anderle Scolnick LLP, supported by colleagues Craig Harbaugh and Greg Sergi, and bolstered by a group of litigators from A&O Shearman including Saul Perloff, Christopher LaVigne, Trey Hebert, Andre Hanson, and Kathy Grant.
Natera’s defense was provided by a team of partners from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, including Kevin Johnson, Andrew Bramhall, Margaret Shyr, Brian Cannon, Valerie Lozano, and Victoria Maroulis, who vigorously contested Guardant’s claims but ultimately did not prevail at trial.
The case highlights the legal and commercial risks inherent in competitive advertising within the life-sciences sector and marks one of the larger false advertising verdicts in recent U.S. litigation history.
Hueston Hennigan LLP Deliver with a Bang!
In one of the most consequential false advertising rulings in recent U.S. history, a federal jury in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California delivered a resounding verdict in favor of Monster Energy Company against Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“VPX”), doing business as Bang Energy, and its founder John H. “Jack” Owoc. The case, overseen by Judge Jesus G. Bernal, focused on whether VPX’s marketing of its Bang energy drinks misled consumers about product ingredients and benefits under the Lanham Act.
The lawsuit, filed in 2018, alleged that VPX falsely advertised that Bang contained “Super Creatine” and touted health benefits—including increased brain function and protections against neurological disease—that the product could not deliver. After a multi-week trial beginning in August 2022, the jury unanimously found VPX and Owoc liable for false advertising, awarding approximately $271 million in damages. Judge Bernal’s post-trial judgment added attorneys’ fees of over $16 million, costs of $5 million and prejudgment interest of $13 million—pushing the total award well over $311 million. The court also imposed a permanent injunction barring VPX and Owoc from marketing Bang with any claims that it contains creatine, Super Creatine, or delivers related health benefits.
Monster’s legal team was led by trial and appellate counsel from Hueston Hennigan LLP, including Allison Libeu, John Hueston, Moez Kaba, Sourabh Mishra, Justin Greer, and Christopher Galeano. These attorneys successfully argued both at trial and before the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which in April 2025 affirmed the $311 million judgment and injunction, rejecting VPX’s appeal challenging evidentiary rulings.
VPX and Jack Owoc were represented by Quarles & Brady LLP, with counsel including Matthew Kita defending the appeal. The defense contended that the trial court improperly excluded evidence VPX believed was crucial to its case, but the Ninth Circuit upheld the lower court’s decisions.
The outcome ended with VPX’s bankruptcy and subsequent acquisition by Monster, underscoring the significant commercial and legal impact of misleading advertising in competitive consumer markets.