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
© 2024 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 AllLatham, Finnegan Win $115M Muscular Dystrophy Drug Patent Verdict for Counterclaimant
2 minute readDelaware Supreme Court Adopts Broad Interpretation of Case Law on Anticompetition Provisions
3 minute read3rd Circuit Nominee Mangi Sees 'No Pathway to Confirmation,' Derides 'Organized Smear Campaign'
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Call for Nominations: Elite Trial Lawyers 2025
- 2Senate Judiciary Dems Release Report on Supreme Court Ethics
- 3Senate Confirms Last 2 of Biden's California Judicial Nominees
- 4Morrison & Foerster Doles Out Year-End and Special Bonuses, Raises Base Compensation for Associates
- 5Tom Girardi to Surrender to Federal Authorities on Jan. 7
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
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