• Howland v. Kumar

    Publication Date: 2019-06-26
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance
    Industry: Biotechnology | Investments and Investment Advisory
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor McCormick
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Sidney S. Liebesman, Johnna M. Darby and Wali W. Rushdan II, Fox Rothschild LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiff.
    for defendant: Bradley D. Sorrels and Daniyal M. Iqbal, Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, P.C., Wilmington, DE for individual defendants. Stephen E. Jenkins, Ashby & Geddes, P.A., Wilmington, DE for nominal defendant Anixa Biosciences, Inc.

    Case Number: D68611

    In this derivative action, a stockholder alleged sufficient facts to support an inference that defendant directors and officers breached their fiduciary duty.

  • Delaware Business Court Insider

    McCormick Refuses to Throw Out Derivative Claims Over California Firm's Stock Repricing

    June 14, 2019

    Vice Chancellor Kathaleen S. McCormick ruled Thursday that plaintiff Thomas S. Howland Jr. and his Fox Rothschild attorneys had supported claims for breaches of fiduciary duty and unjust enrichment against the officers and directors of Anixa Biosciences Inc.

  • Delaware Business Court Insider

    Sandoz Released From Suit Targeting Planned Generic Lung Treatment Competitor

    May 02, 2019

    A Delaware federal judge on Thursday approved an agreement by San Francisco-based Genentech and Sandoz to dismiss the two entities, without prejudice, from the lawsuit, because neither had been involved in filing an abbreviated new drug application at the heart of the dispute.

  • Delaware Law Weekly

    New Lawsuit Takes Aim at Promotion of Rival Kidney Transplant Rejection Test

    April 10, 2019

    In a complaint filed Wednesday morning, attorneys for CareDx said Natera, which is based in San Carlos, California, was using a flawed study to launch a "false marketing campaign,"

  • Himawan v. Cephalon, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2019-01-09
    Practice Area: Contractual Disputes | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Biotechnology
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Richard L. Renck, Oderah C. Nwaeze, John J. Soroko, Wayne A. Mack, Jessica Priselac and Joseph J. Pangaro of Duane Mor-ris LLP, Wilmington, DE for plaintiffs.
    for defendant: Kevin Shannon and J. Matthew Belger of Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE; Jay P. Lefkowitz, Matthew So-lum, Shireen A. Barday, Amanda B. Elbogen and Z. Payvand Ahdout of Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY for defendants.

    Case Number: D68417

    The court allowed a breach of contract claim to proceed where it was unclear whether a defendant used commercially reason-able efforts, but plaintiffs failed to state a claim for tortious interference and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing.

  • Delaware Business Court Insider

    Del. Chancery Court Tosses $300M Biotech Lawsuit as Untimely

    December 10, 2018

    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.

  • Monaghan Med. Corp. v. Smiths Med. ASD, Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-07-18
    Practice Area: Patent Litigation
    Industry: Biotechnology
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Dominick T. Gattuso, William H. Frankel, David P. Lindner and Jafon L. Fearson for plaintiff
    for defendant: Jody Barillare, J. Kevin Fee and Jeremy D. Peterson for defendant.

    Case Number: D68219

    The court engaged in claim construction in this patent matter involving medical equipment.

  • In re Hansen Med., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-07-04
    Practice Area: Corporate Governance | Mergers and Acquisitions
    Industry: Biotechnology
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Montgomery-Reeves
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Carmella P. Keenor, Carl L. Stine, Matthew Insley-Pruitt and Adam M. Blander for plaintiff
    for defendant: Stephen C. Norman, Brian C. Ralston, Jacqueline A. Rogers, Sara B. Brody and Matthew J. Dolan for defendants Vance and Lowe; Raymond J. DiCamillo, Sarah A. Clark, Ryan P. Durkin, Rocky C. Tsai, John D. Donovan, Jr. and Martin J. Crisp for defendant Auris Surgical Robotics, Inc.; C. Barr Flinn, Kathaleen S. McCormick, Richard J. Thomas, M. Paige Valeski, Tariq Mundiya, Benjamin P. McCallen and Casey Donnelly for remaining defendants.

    Case Number: D68201

    Minority stockholders in this merger case alleged reasonably conceivable claims for breach of fiduciary duty, but not for aiding and abetting.

  • Integra LifeSciences Corp. v. HyperBranch Med. Tech., Inc.

    Publication Date: 2018-06-20
    Practice Area: Expert Witnesses | Patent Litigation
    Industry: Biotechnology
    Court: U.S. District Court of Delaware
    Judge: District Judge Stark
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Karen L. Pascale, James L. Higgins, Robert F. Altherr, Jr., Christopher B. Roth, Jason S. Shull and John P. Iwanicki for plaintiffs
    for defendant: Thomas C. Grimm, Jeremy A. Tigan, Stephen J. Kraftschik, Jonathan G. Graves, Adam M. Pivovar, James P. Hughes, Stephen C. Crenshaw, Lisa F. Schwier, Nicholas G. Lockhart and Naina Soni for de-fendant.

    Case Number: D68187

    The parties were not entitled to exclude expert testimony because the opinions were reasonably reliable, and summary judgment was proper as to the issue of whether a two-player market existed.

  • WNYH, LLC v. AccuMED Corp.

    Publication Date: 2018-06-13
    Practice Area: Contracts | Deals and Transactions
    Industry: Biotechnology
    Court: Court of Chancery
    Judge: Vice Chancellor Glasscock
    Attorneys: For plaintiff: Kevin G. Abrams, Matthew L. Miller, Christopher R. Rodi and Brian J. Capitummino for plaintiff
    for defendant: Gregory v. Varallo and Susan M. Hannigan for defendants.

    Case Number: D68181

    The parties to a sale agreement did not condition the transaction on tax-free status, so the seller did not have a breach of contract claim against the buyer, but the court refused to dismiss a claim relating to an escrow ac-count, because the parties' escrow settlement agreement was ambiguous.