Photo: angellodeco/Shutterstock.com

A company that says it is developing a potential COVID-19 vaccine has asked for court action that would require a DNA manufacturing firm to divulge proprietary techniques in the hopes of ramping up production of a drug that could end the pandemic, but a Pennsylvania trial court judge has denied that request.

Judge Jeffrey Saltz of the Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas on Thursday denied a request for injunction that Plymouth Meeting-based drugmaker Inovio sought that would have compelled South Korean DNA manufacturer VGXI to transfer proprietary manufacturing processes to as many as 10 other manufacturers.

Saltz's decision is a win for Blank Rome, which represented the Korean DNA firm. Daniel Rhynhart, Michael Iannucci and Courtney O'Brien represented VGXI.

In an emailed statement, Rhynhart said, "We're pleased with the court's decision protecting our client's proprietary manufacturing technology. VGXI is proud to be manufacturing vaccine candidates for Covid-19, and remains committed to helping find a cure."

Gibbons' Stephen Finley represented Inovio. He did not immediately return a call seeking comment.

Although Inovio contended that the transfer was necessary to develop sufficient quantities of a promising vaccine it already has in the works, Saltz said the notion that public benefit hinged on VGXI immediately transferring trade secret information was speculative.

"There are more than a hundred other potential vaccines in development, any one of which may be the silver bullet (or one of multiple silver bullets) that can end this pandemic," Salts said. "Inovio has presented evidence that the results of its product thus far are very encouraging. But the history of pharmaceutical research contains countless examples of treatments that initially showed promise but ultimately failed to prove themselves safe and effective."

READ THE RULING:

The case comes as cases of the highly contagious coronavirus have been once again surging in parts of the United States, with a record number of new cases nationwide in a single day earlier this week. Along with taking the lives of hundreds of thousands of people across the globe, the illness has wreaked havoc on the world economy and is expected to leave lasting social effects for years to come.

According to Saltz, Inovio initially filed its injunction seeking VGXI's manufacturing information June 1, arguing it would be key to beginning large-scale production of a promising vaccine now in the phase I development stage. Inovio noted that the two companies are parties to a supply agreement from 2008, which was later amended in 2013, where VGXI agreed to supply DNA plasmids to Inovio. The agreement also provides that VGXI would treat Inovio as its "most favored supplier," and "most favored customer."

In its complaint, Inovio said that with VGXI's proprietary information going out to as many as 10 different companies, supply of its vaccine could be ramped up to one million doses by the end of the year and one hundred million doses by the end of 2021.

Saltz said that, although it is clear facilitating the mass production of a COVID-19 vaccine would greatly benefit the public interest, Inovio's other arguments are less clear. Initially, he said it was unclear that VGXI would be unable to manufacture Inovio's vaccine requirements, and further it was clear that the request technology transfer would substantially harm the defendant.

He also rejected Inovio's argument that such a broad transfer of trade secret information had been contemplated as part of their current supplier agreement and said it was further unclear about what exactly would need to be transferred, as Inovio said it could not identify all the files that would need to be transferred and the parties disputed what personnel would be required.

Ultimately, Saltz determined that Inovio had not made a strong enough case to win an injunction.

"In the face of the devastation that the COVID-19 pandemic has caused and will continue to cause, it may be tempting to conclude t hat even the possibility, however uncertain, that Inovio's vaccine may be the best and fastest way to bring the pandemic to an end is a sufficient basis for granting its petition," Saltz said. "But following that temptation would be a misuse of the extraordinary power of the court to order injunctive relief."