Venn Therapeutics Implicates Competitor in Trade Secrets Suit


Venn Therapeutics has filed suit against Corbus Pharmaceuticals Holdings, Inc. in the Middle District of Florida. The plaintiff is alleging that the defendant breached a nondisclosure agreement and that they used resulting information to develop immunotherapy programs for cancer and fibrosis similar to Venn’s.

Corbus, is a “corporation organized under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Norwood, Massachusetts.”

The plaintiff had been working on two promising immunotherapy programs for cancer and fibrosis and disclosed this information to the defendant as a means of negotiating a partnership or an acquisition of the company, according to the complaint Venns disclosed information on the grounds that it would not be used in any other means except for business negotiations and “brings this case to stop Corbus improper use of its trade secrets and to hold Corbus accountable for its misconduct.”

The plaintiff is alleging that Corbus had been going through their documents for months as only a means to negotiate potential business partnerships, but that it had begun using the information for its own purposes weeks after not moving forward with any partnership or acquisition. 

The complaint said that the two antibody programs that Venn had been working on were VTX-001, and VTX-002 and had shown signs of promise and were considered very valuable by the defendant because of the secrecy surrounding the creation of the antibody programs.

The defendant is facing nine different counts, including breach of contract, misappropriation of trade secrets under both the Defend Trade Secrets Act, the Massachusetts Uniform Trade Secret Act, intentional misrepresentation, negligent misrepresentation, fraudulent omission, interference with advantageous business relations, unjust enrichment, unfair methods of competition or Deceptive Acts or Practices under Massachusetts G.L. c. 93A § 11. 

Venn is seeking favorable judgments and damages, 

The plaintiff is being represented by Dovel & Luner LLP,