Tempus AI, Inc.

Proceedings.

From time to time, we may be involved in various legal proceedings, including commercial claims from customers and vendors, potential lawsuits seeking damages and/or injunctive relief, employment disputes, subpoenas, government investigations, regulatory or administrative proceedings, and other types of matters arising from the normal course of business activities. We may also initiate such proceedings against various third parties. Defending against and pursuing such proceedings is costly and can impose a significant burden on management and employees. The results of any current or future litigation cannot be predicted with certainty, and regardless of the outcome, litigation can have an adverse impact on us because of defense and settlement costs, diversion of management resources, and other factors. Except as described below, we believe there are currently no pending legal proceedings to which we or our property are subject that could have a material adverse effect on our financial position, results of operations or cash flows.

In other instances, although no formal legal proceeding has been instituted, from time to time, we receive requests from governmental agencies, or third parties working on their behalf, for documents and information related to our products and services. For example, on May 19, 2022, we received a subpoena from the Office of the Ohio Attorney General. The subpoena required production of certain billing and patient records associated with nine Ohio Medicaid patients who received our clinical diagnostic tests between 2019 and 2022. We provided responsive documents in June 2022 and have not received additional inquiry from the Ohio Attorney General’s office since that time.

Similarly, on March 4, 2024, we received a Civil Investigative Demand, or CID, from the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York. The CID requested documents and other information related to our compliance with the False Claims Act, the Anti-Kickback statute, and in particular 42 C.F.R. § 414.510(b), which is commonly referred to as the Medicare 14-Day or Date of Service Rule. We provided an initial production on April 4, 2024, and have produced additional responsive documents on a rolling basis since that time.

While we believe our programs and payments comply with the Anti-Kickback statute and other applicable regulations, no assurance can be given as to the timing or outcome of the government’s investigation, or that it will not result in a material adverse effect on our business. In addition, we have received requests for medical records and billing information from certain Unified Program Integrity Coordinators or other third parties working on the government’s behalf regarding clinical diagnostic services provided by us to patients enrolled in the Medicare and Medicaid programs. We have responded to all such requests for information.

On June 11, 2024, Guardant Health Inc., or Guardant, filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges that the Tempus xF, Tempus xF+, Tempus xM Monitor and Tempus xM MRD products use liquid biopsy technology that infringes five Guardant U.S. patents. The complaint seeks injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages (including enhanced damages), a future mandatory royalty, costs and attorneys fees. On January 17, 2025, Guardant separately sought a Declaratory Judgment against Tempus in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware regarding the veracity of certain advertisements Guardant has published regarding the companies’ respective products. On March 14, 2025, Tempus filed multiple counterclaims against Guardant under the Lanham Act and related states statutes alleging, among other things, that Guardant’s advertisements were false and misleading. Tempus filed a separate patent infringement complaint against

Guardant in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California alleging that certain Guardant products infringe U.S. Patent Nos. 12,112,839, 11,640,859, 10,957,041, and 10,991,097. On August 12, 2025, Guardant filed a complaint against us in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware alleging that Tempus’s xM tests infringe three Guardant U.S. patents. The xM complaint, which has been consolidated with Guardant’s pending patent infringement case in the District of Delaware, seeks injunctive relief, unspecified monetary damages (including enhanced damages), a future mandatory royalty, costs and attorneys fees. All cases are pending.

On June 12, 2025, the Company, Mr. Lefkofsky, our Chief Executive Officer, and Mr. Rogers, our Chief Financial Officer, were named as defendants in a federal securities class-action lawsuit titled Shouse v. Tempus AI, Inc. et al., which was filed in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. On November 17, 2025, the lead plaintiff in the action voluntarily dismissed the action after determining “that he could not file an amended complaint that met the PSLRA’s heightened pleading requirements.” Two derivative lawsuits based on the same set of operative facts were also voluntarily dismissed.

On February 12, 2026, a lawsuit was filed against us in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. A companion case was filed the next day in the same court. Both lawsuits allege violations of the Illinois Genetic Information Privacy Act and seek class action status. We believe the lawsuits to be without merit and intend to vigorously defend ourselves.

We assess legal contingencies to determine the degree of probability and range of possible loss for potential accrual in its financial statements. When evaluating legal contingencies, we may be unable to provide a meaningful estimate due to a number of factors, including the procedural status of the matter in question, the presence of complex or novel legal theories, and/or the ongoing discovery and development of information important to the matters. In addition, damage amounts claimed may be unsupported, exaggerated or unrelated to possible outcomes, and as such are not meaningful indicators of potential liability. Loss contingencies, including claims and legal actions arising in the ordinary course of business, are recorded as liabilities when the likelihood of loss is probable and an amount or range of loss can be reasonably estimated.