Justia Delaware Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

A Swedish private equity firm specializing in veterinary products sought to acquire a company that manufactured orthopedic implants for animals. At the time of negotiations, the target company was involved in ongoing patent litigation initiated by a third party, which posed significant financial risk. To address this uncertainty, the parties included a broad indemnification provision in their agreement, requiring the sellers to cover losses “as a result of, or in connection with” the patent litigation. After the sale closed, the litigation expanded to include additional products and patents, culminating in a $70 million settlement and a license for one of the company’s products. The buyer financed the settlement with a loan. Most former owners settled indemnity claims, but the company’s founder did not, prompting the new owners to sue for enforcement of the indemnity.The Superior Court of the State of Delaware initially granted summary judgment to the buyers on certain defenses but otherwise denied both parties’ motions, proceeding to trial. Following trial, the court held that the founder was required to indemnify the buyers for damages arising from the patent litigation, but not for the cost of the patent license. It awarded only half of the requested attorneys’ fees for patent litigation, citing allocation challenges, and also denied recovery of fees incurred to enforce the indemnification provision. The court did, however, award prejudgment interest, including on the loan interest expense.On appeal, the Supreme Court of the State of Delaware affirmed in part and reversed in part. It held that the indemnification provision covered losses arising from post-transaction conduct and did not violate public policy, and that the implied covenant defense was inapplicable. The court found error in awarding prejudgment interest on the loan-interest expense, which resulted in a double recovery. For the cross-appeal, it held that the buyers were entitled to the license cost and the full amount of attorneys’ fees from the patent litigation, but not fees for enforcing the indemnification provision. The case was remanded for further proceedings. View "Gendreau vs Movora LLC" on Justia Law

Glaxo Group Limited and Human Genome Sciences, Inc. (collectively, “GSK”) owned patents covering Benlysta, a lupus treatment drug. GSK filed a patent application with the United States Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) claiming a method for treating lupus. Biogen Idec MA Inc. (“Biogen”) held an issued patent covering a similar method for treating lupus. When parties dispute who was first to discover an invention, the PTO declares an interference. Rather than suffer the delay and uncertainty of an interference proceeding, the parties agreed to settle their differences through a patent license and settlement agreement (“Agreement”). GSK ended up with its issued patent. The PTO cancelled Biogen’s patent, and Biogen received upfront and milestone payments and ongoing royalties for Benlysta sales. Under the Agreement GSK agreed to make royalty payments to Biogen until the expiration of the last “Valid Claim” of certain patents, including the lupus treatment patent. The Agreement defined a Valid Claim as an unexpired patent claim that has not, among other things, been “disclaimed” by GSK. GSK paid Biogen royalties on Benlysta sales. After Biogen assigned the Agreement to DRIT LP - an entity that purchased intellectual property royalty streams - GSK filed a statutory disclaimer that disclaimed the patent and all its claims. GSK notified DRIT that there were no longer any Valid Claims under the Agreement and stopped paying royalties on Benlysta sales. DRIT sued GSK in the Superior Court for breach of contract and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing for failing to pay royalties under the Agreement. The court dismissed DRIT’s breach of contract claim but allowed the implied covenant claim to go to a jury trial. The jury found for DRIT, and the court awarded damages. On appeal, GSK argued the superior court should have granted it judgment as a matter of law on the implied covenant claim. On cross-appeal, DRIT claimed that, if the Court reversed the jury verdict on the implied covenant claim, it should reverse the superior court’s ruling dismissing the breach of contract claim. The Delaware Supreme Court found the superior court properly dismissed DRIT’s breach of contract claim, but should have granted GSK judgment as a matter of law on the implied covenant claim. Thus, the superior court's judgment was reversed. View "Glaxo Group Limited, et al. v. DRIT LP" on Justia Law

Alcon Laboratories Holding Corporation, a developer of artificial lenses, was exploring electroactive intraocular lens (“EAIOL”) that used electric power and changes in eye pupil size to “trigger” the focus of an artificial lens. Elenza, Inc. and Alcon decided to jointly pursue the technology, first by signing a Non-Disclosure Agreement (“NDA”), followed by a Stock Purchase Agreement (“SPA”). Unfortunately, the project fizzled after Elenza failed to meet development milestones in the SPA. Much to Elenza’s surprise, two years later, Alcon filed a patent application for an EAIOL and announced that it was working with Google, Inc. to develop an EAIOL. Elenza filed suit in Delaware, claiming Alcon breached its agreements with Elenza and misappropriated Elenza’s EAIOL trade secrets. Before trial, the Superior Court granted in part Alcon’s motion for summary judgment, finding that Elenza failed to support its trade secret claims. The court also limited Elenza’s damage claims. The contract claims went to trial, and a jury found against Elenza on all claims. On appeal, Elenza argued to the Delaware Supreme Court that the Superior Court erred when it granted summary judgment on its trade secret claims. According to Elenza, at the summary judgment stage, its trade secret disclosures were sufficient to prove that trade secrets existed and that Alcon used or disclosed those secrets in its later development efforts. The Supreme Court did not reach Elenza’s claim on appeal that it raised disputed factual issues about the existence of trade secrets because the Court agreed with the Superior Court that, at summary judgment, Elenza failed to support its claim that Alcon improperly used or disclosed any of Elenza’s alleged trade secrets. View "Elenza, Inc. v. Alcon Laboratories Holding Corporation, et al." on Justia Law