Spacecraft Builder Appeals Del. Ruling Upholding $4M Award in Contract Case
Moon Express said last week in court papers that it was challenging the Oct. 15 decision from U.S. Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark.
November 19, 2018 at 02:51 PM
4 minute read
Moon Express Inc. has appealed last month's ruling from a Delaware federal judge upholding a $4.1 million jury verdict against the Cape Canaveral, Florida-based builder of lunar landers for failing to pay the company that it hired to create software for a vehicle capable of transporting experiments from the International Space Station.
Moon Express said last week in court papers that it was challenging the Oct. 15 decision from U.S. Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark, which denied Moon Express' request for a new trial and awarded Houston-based engineering startup Intuitive Machines cash and equity in its one-time partner. A notice of appeal was filed Nov. 16 with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, according to an online docket-tracking service.
Moon Express, which is headquartered at the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station in Florida, had hired Intuitive Machines in 2015 to write flight software and help build a terrestrial return vehicle for its commercial lunar transportation business.
The company sued the following, after the partnership broke down, alleging that Intuitive Machines had lied about its ability to meet its obligations under two contracts. Intuitive Machines countered that it had met its contractual duties and had only stopped work because Moon Express had failed to make agreed-upon payments.
Following a five-day trial, a Wilmington jury sided with Intuitive Machines, awarding damages of $1.25 million in cash and $2.25 million in Moon Express equity for breaches of one contract. The panel also awarded $732,000 on another contract that was at issue in the suit.
Moon Express moved for a new trial with respect to both contracts. The company claimed that the jury had overlooked evidence that Intuitive Machines had deliberately breached its obligations by refusing to deliver software that it had already developed, cancelling Moon Express' obligation to provide a test vehicle to Intuitive Machines to perform a crucial “tethered test,” which would have triggered a payment under the one of the contracts.
However, Stark noted that Moon Express had taken the opposite position at trial, telling the jury that Intuitive Machines needed to perform the test on a test vehicle in order to get paid.
“[Moon Express'] post-trial about-face is striking,” Stark wrote in a 20-page memorandum order last month.
Stark said that the jury had heard testimony from Moon Express' own CEO, Bob Richards, that the company had never provided a test vehicle and had no intention to, because it was contemplating a new vehicle design and had decided that a tethered test was no longer suitable for Intuitive Machines' software.
“While the jury was not compelled to credit all of [Intuitive Machines'] evidence, it was free to do so,” Stark wrote. “In the court's view, there was plainly enough evidence to support the jury's finding.”
Stark's ruling Monday also granted Intuitive Machine's request for attorney fees and denied Moon Express' request that the judgment be stayed pending Intuitive's request to have the equity portion of the verdict converted to cash. Both sides are set to argue the motion early next year.
Moon Express, founded in 2010 by Richards and space entrepreneurs Naveen Jain and Barney Pell, was formed to compete for Google's Lunar X Prize, which seeks to spur innovation in private spaceflight. Ultimately, the company says it plans to scour the earth's surface for precious metals and other rare elements. It hopes to become the first private company to land an unmanned probe on the moon and develop a continuing commercial robotic lunar transportation business to return materials to earth.
The case is captioned Moon Express v. Intuitive Machines.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllZoom Faces Intellectual Property Suit Over AI-Based Augmented Video Conferencing
3 minute readEtsy App Infringes on Storage, Retrieval Patents, New Suit Claims
Trending Stories
- 1DC Circuit Keeps Docs in Judge Newman's Misconduct Proceedings Sealed
- 2Litigators of the Week: US Soccer and MLS Fend Off Claims They Conspired to Scuttle Rival League’s Prospect
- 3Litigator of the Week Runners-Up and Shout-Outs
- 4U.S.- China Trade War: Lawyers and Clients Left 'Relying on the Governments to Sort This Out'
- 5Willkie Adds Five-Lawyer Team From Quinn Emanuel in Germany
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250