RNAi Litigation

Archive for September 26th, 2011

from Sherk

Barry Greene’s letter to Mark Murray which Alnylam has filed with their response might be relevant here. In that letter, Greene asks Murray to agree that MC3 be withheld from their newly inked collaboration with Pfizer:

“In particular, we would like to confirm that your work with Pfizer will not include any of the lipids to which Alnylam has exclusive rights (subject to your license for specific targets), including XTC and MC3.”

Was Tekmira unaware of MC3’s composition at the time of this letter (which Murray signs)? At what point did Tekmira begin to have a problem with Alnylam’s rights to these lipids?

Personally, I believe the lawsuit has its origins at least partially in the slackening of interest in RNAi among big pharma. With Roche and Pfizer pulling up stakes (among others) the remaining RNAi companies are left to fight over a smaller number of partnering opportunities. Perhaps the pie no longer seems large enough to share.

Added by JL: “…notwithstanding its inflammatory accusation that Alnylam “stole” MC3, Tekmira’s CEO previously acknowledged in writing that Alnylam has exclusive rights in MC3. See Exhibit 1 attached hereto (click to enlarge), a true and accurate copy of a letter dated March 17, 2010 from Barry E. Greene, President and Chief Operating Officer of Alnylam Pharmaceuticals, Inc. to Mark Murray, President and Chief Executive Officer of Tekmira Pharmaceuticals Corporation. It is remarkable that Tekmira aims to hoodwink this Court by failing to mention that acknowledgment, its covenant not to sue, its waiver of restrictions on the AlCana founders, and the agreed upon research plan in the Supplemental Agreement.”

‘Hell hath no fury like a lipid scientist scorned’ and ‘Hell hath no fury like a corporate partner scorned’

[from Tekmira and Protiva’s response to AlCana’s counterclaims filed August 4, 2011]

Para 24: “Tekmira admits that the Supplemental Agreement included a detailed research plan that described the work that was contemplated to be conducted among AICana, Alnylam, and UBC, and that the SRA was attached to the Supplemental Agreement as an exhibit. Tekmira admits that the workplan attached to the SRA disclosed that the parties would be designing and synthesizing over 100 novel lipids and identified the AICana scientists who would be working on the research collaboration.”

Para 30: “Tekmira admits SRA was attached to the Supplemental Agreement as an exhibit, and that the workplan attached to the SRA disclosed that the parties would be designing and synthesizing over 100 novel lipids and identified the AICana scientists who would be working on the research collaboration.”

Para 40: “Tekmira admits SRA was attached to the Supplemental Agreement as an exhibit, and that the workplan attached to the SRA disclosed that the parties would be designing and synthesizing over 100 novel lipids.”

Para 75: “As alleged by AICana, the SRA was attached to the Supplemental Agreement as an exhibit, and that the workplan attached to the SRA represents that AlCana would be designing and synthesizing novel lipids, not lipids or other research based on and/or derived from Tekmira information and technology. In response to Tekmira’s concerns about the improper use of Tekmira information, AICana and Alnylam represented to Tekmira that AICana would explore new structures, not structures that contain, were based on, and/or derived from Tekmira information.”

Para 77: “Tekmira relied on these representations and omissions in agreeing to the Supplemental Agreement. AlCana’s contemporaneous representations are consistent with its 15 counterclaim allegation that Tekmira was under the impression that scientists who had previously worked for Tekmira in developing LNPs would be conducting further research in collaboration with Alnylam looking for ‘new novel LNPs’.”