Jeff Sherman: As Chris said earlier, we really view it as an overall portfolio and we guide on a portfolio basis. So we haven’t broken out that individually. We do expect both of them to grow in the year. We just haven’t broken it out and don’t plan on breaking it out in our guidance.
John Kim: I did want to ask about the patent infringement ruling against radar that was in December, any expectations as to, I know it’s not included in the guidance, so not expecting any financial impact there on the top line or the bottom line, but any expectations in terms of when you think this might get resolved or like if it comes to getting rid of it, what impact that could have on the bottom line?
Chris Smith: I’m going to let Ali address legal questions, but two quick points. So our guide does not include any radar in it number one, but number two, we do believe MRD is important, so I’ll just put that and then I’ll throw it to Ali to let her kind of walk through how the legal side is coming.
Ali Olivo: We don’t have any visibility to the timing. What we know is that we’ve requested expedited an expedited hearing, and we’ve been granted that expedition and the hearing was, as Chris said, is scheduled for March 29th. And so various factors kind of contribute to the Federal Circuit Court of appeals timing on a decision, including whether or not the decision is presidential, whether there’s a dissenting opinion on the panel of three judges. We have also made a motion for a stay pending the appeal, and that motion was fully briefed like Chris said, as of today. And so timing on that is within a couple of weeks. That’s sort of what we know in terms of timing on the appeal. As far as the infringement matters in district court, those are ongoing and are in the discovery stage. The North Carolina case has been set for trial in March of 2025 and the Delaware case has been set for trial in October of 2025.
Operator: Up next, we have Tejas Savant with Morgan Stanley.
Tejas Savant : I just wanted to push on that, a similar line of questioning there. I was curious, Chris, in terms of the comments you made in your prepared remarks about your options available here. Can you give us a sense for how quickly you could pivot to perhaps a new version of RaDaR, as a workaround for the litigation and that’s something we’ve seen other peers in the industry resort to in relatively short order. I was curious if that was an option that you were actively exploring at the moment as well.
Chris Smith : Look, I would say that we’re actively exploring all options around MRD with the first situation that we believe unanimously about our position from a legal. I mean, obviously, that’s where we’re going. That being said, we have been in development for additional MRD products beginning probably 12 months before this even started. So I would say that that’s been ongoing. And I would say with us, we believe like a lot of the products that we’re trying to bring to market, we think there’s an incredible need from a patient perspective, especially for products that continue to improve sensitivity. I would say that, Vishal and the team in R&D operate with an incredible sense of urgency. But it’s not just from a technology perspective, but it’s from an IP perspective that they’re looking at us from a commercialization perspective. But we haven’t given any timelines just that we’re operating with a sense of urgency on it.
Tejas Savant : And then just one quick follow up for me on the biomarker bill. Can you lay out, Chris, what proportion of your tests you think could benefit from incremental commercial payer coverage here? Given even the states that have currently passed the legislation?
Warren Stone : I don’t think, so very clearly where we believe the value will come is on any NGS test, which is a panel of 50 or larger genes. That’s where today reimbursement from a third-party payer perspective is quite limited. So that’s where we see the benefits in terms of — I think what portion of our business debt is et cetera. That’s something we actually haven’t commented on.
Chris Smith : Yes, and one of the things we will talk more about some of the strategic priorities in ‘24 when we get together after Q1, but one of them is to launch our neo comprehensive 2.0, which is a significant larger panel. And so obviously that’ll be an important tool for us.
Operator: The next question comes from Dan Brennan with TD Cowen.
Dan Brennan : Maybe just a question back to the liquid offering, any color on what type of reimbursement we can expect and how should we think about framing the opportunity from like a revenue potential perspective?
Chris Smith : You want to take that a little bit about what’s going on in the market.
Jeff Sherman : The good news here is that, I mean there is reimbursement that’s established similar to what you see with the tissue test. And we expect something from a reimbursement perspective, at least for Medicare, would be in a similar type dollar amount as what we see on the tissue side of things with potential for higher, depending on what kind of status we get on this But the reality is that we are also seeing NCCN guidelines get updated at the same time, and you saw that on the lung space in late 2023, where it changed from tissue not being available, especially in lung cancer to tissue or liquid being done at the same time or in with a independent of each other. I think you’re seeing the guidelines are changing and that also helps with the whole reimbursement story and the clinical adoption of course, especially in the community based setting. I think having a liquid offering that is widespread is going to be critical for us for commercial growth.
