Del. Chancery Court Tosses $300M Biotech Lawsuit as Untimely
Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves said Monday that Newark-based biotech firm iBio Inc. had filed its suit against Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Angewandten Forschung outside of the three-year statute of limitations.
December 10, 2018 at 05:32 PM
4 minute read
The Delaware Court of Chancery has dismissed a potentially $300 million lawsuit against one of Europe's largest research organizations, finding that a former partner waited too long to press claims that the company had tried to steal its trade secrets.
Vice Chancellor Tamika Montgomery-Reeves said Monday that Newark-based biotech firm iBio Inc. had filed its suit against Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Angewandten Forschung outside of the three-year statute of limitations. In an 18-page memorandum opinion, Montgomery-Reeves said that iBio was aware of its claims against FhG, a German nonprofit in the field of applied research, as early as June 2014, but waited until last November to file its complaint.
The dispute centered on multiple agreements between the companies to develop plant-based technology for biopharmaceuticals and who ultimately controlled a groundbreaking method for using plants to fight diseases at reduced costs.
iBio, which is now headquartered in New York, said in its complaint that it owned all rights to the technology FhG had developed for it when the two firms were working collaboratively in the Delaware Technology Park incubator in Newark. According to iBio, FhG helped its American subsidiary to breach its contract with iBio and peddle the work to other firms.
In its lawsuit, iBio valued the technology at $100 million and said it would seek treble damages for FhG's alleged interference with its business. FhG moved to dismiss the suit last December, arguing that the that iBio had failed to sufficiently lay out its claims.
On Monday, Montgomery-Reeves found that there was basis for iBio's suit, but she ruled that the claims were filed too late. In her opinion, Montgomery-Reeves looked to similar litigation iBio had filed to conclude that iBio knew about FhG's role in the alleged conspiracy “no later than” October 2014. The complaint was filed Nov. 3, 2014.
“iBio's Complaint reveals that iBio had either actual knowledge or was on inquiry notice of its claims more than three years before it filed the present action,” she wrote.
iBio had argued that it wasn't put on notice of any wrongdoing until early November 2014, and FhG had worked up until that point to hide its involvement in the alleged scheme.
However, Montgomery-Reeves said iBio had enough facts at its disposal to begin investigating FhG as early as June 2014.
“iBio's complaint shows that although iBio may not have known the full extent of FUSA's breaches of its contracts with iBio or FhG's involvement in the breaches, iBio had at least inquiry notice that FhG had a role in FUSA's breaches,” she said.
Attorneys for FhG was not immediately available to comment Monday afternoon.
Mark Premo-Hopkins, who represented iBio, said his team was “disappointed, but the decision doesn't undermine our central mission” to recover the losses to iBio's business.
iBio has a separate case against FhG's American subsidiary still pending in Chancery Court. That case is also assigned to Montgomery-Reeves.
iBio was represented by Reed S. Oslan, Mark Premo-Hopkins, Britt Cramer and Allison McDonald of Kirkland & Ellis in Chicago and Inbal Hasbani and Kyla Jackson of the firm's New York Office. David E. Ross and Eric D. Selden of Ross, Aronstam & Moritz in Wilmington acted as local counsel.
FhG was represented by M. Duncan Grant, Christopher B. Chuff, James H. S. Levine and Ellis E. Herington of Pepper Hamilton in Wilmington.
The case was captioned iBio v. Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft zur Förderung der Angewandten Forschung.
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 AllWilson Sonsini Knocks Out Claims Against Inhibrx Biosciences in Trade Secrets Verdict
Superior Court: More Overlap in Case Facts Needed for Insurer to Deny D&O Coverage
3 minute readTrending Stories
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