RNAi Litigation

On July 11, 2012 Judge Janet Sanders of the Suffolk County Superior Court published her ruling on the Defendants’ motion for a Partial Summary Judgment. Judge Sanders acknowledged that, “without prejudging the case,” she recognized Tekmira’s need to have a “speedy” resolution of this case given the continuing accrual of damages for the plaintiff. She, therefore, denied the Defendants’ motions for Partial Summary Judgment on the grounds that the Defendants wish would over complicate and delay resolution of the case well beyond the scheduled trial date. The trial of this case is now scheduled to begin on October 30, 2012 about one year after filing of Tekmira’s second amended complaint.

By the end of September, both sides will fully understand the relative merits of their cases (if this is not already fully understood) and, no doubt, negotiations will be attempted to settle the case prior to the trial date. Frankly, I have not been a student of the technical issues behind this dispute of alleged misappropriation of Tekmira’s trade secrets regarding lipid particles for effective delivery of therapeutic siRNA; nor do I wish to prejudge the case based on a smell factor. I would rather learn the facts surrounding this dispute through direct testimony and then report what I have learned directly from the mouths of those involved. I have the same approach for the UUtah lawsuit against Max-Planck et al.

I will be surprised if this case goes to trial because it seems that much could be lost on one side or another as the result of a public trial. So, as I said, both sides will know the strength of their cases and probably settle appropriately. If settlement doesn’t happen, then I will be there at the trial to hear and report on the testimony, and the parties know that others will do the same. So, settlement is predictable at any cost short of liquidation.

In her ruling Judge Sanders was not persuaded by the Defendants’ assertion that the proposed summary judgments, of which there were six, would eliminate issues to simplify the case for trial. At the same time she noted that arguing on these motions would distract the parties from preparing for trial. She said, “The defendants’ schedule – which proposes that all briefs be filed with the Court by the end of August – also appears to be unrealistic. Although fact discovery has closed, additional information may still be forthcoming in light of the Court’s recent rulings on discovery motions, and expert discovery is ongoing. Finally, to comply with the proposed schedule puts the plaintiffs in the difficult position of devoting a large amount of resources to responding to the motions at the same time that counsel must gear up for trial so as not to be forced to request postponement.”

Also, Judge Sanders did not see the merit of eliminating Alcana from the case as argued by the Defendants. This, of course, is indicative of the integral role of the Alana staff in the alleged misappropriation of Tekmira’s proprietary chemistry for siRNA delivery, e.g. SNALP (standing for “stable nucleic acid lipid particle”).

3 Responses to “Status of Tekmira Pharmaceuticals’ Lawsuit against Defendants Alnylam Pharmaceuticals and Partner Alcana Technologies”

Leave a Reply