Juno Therapeutics Inc. et al. v. Kite Pharma Inc.

Patent infringement

Central District

U.S. District Judge S. James Otero

$752 million

Plaintiffs' lawyers: Irell & Manella LLP, Morgan Chu, Alan J. Heinrich, Crawford M. Wells, Elizabeth C. Tuan, Michael Fleming, Rebecca L. Carson, Ingrid Peterson; Jones Day, Andrea Weiss Jeffries, Sarah A. Geers

Defense lawyers: Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP, Jeffrey I. Weinberger, Edward G. "Ted" Dane, Blanca F. Young, Garth T. Vincent, Peter E. Gratzinger, Graham B. Cole; Fish & Richardson PC, Geoffrey D. Biegler, Gregory R. Booker, Megan A. Chacon, Grant T. Rice, Lance E. Wyatt

A federal jury deliberated less than a day before deciding that Sloan Kettering Institute for Cancer Research and Juno Therapeutics Inc. were entitled to $752 million in a patent infringement suit against Kite Pharma Inc., which willfully infringed the patent for the first "living drug," a cancer immunotherapy known as CAR T-cell therapy.

"We had a good case," said Juno's lead lawyer, Morgan Chu of Irell & Manella. "The lawyers on the other side did an excellent job, but it came down to the credibility of our fact witnesses." Juno Therapeutics Inc. v. Kite Pharma Inc., 2:17-cv-07639 (C.D. Cal., filed Oct. 18, 2017).

The award was exactly the sum the plaintiffs sought. It included an upfront payment of $585 million and a 27.6 percent running royalty. The willful infringement finding means the court can triple the damages; that issue remains before Senior U.S. District Judge S. James Otero of Los Angeles. The running royalty rate may also apply to all future revenues through the patent's expiration in 2024.

"The greater significance is that Juno as a very small startup was able to protect the IP owned and licensed by Sloan. It is difficult for a research institution like Sloan Kettering and for a small company like Juno to weather litigation when they need to focus on product development, but it became necessary for them to stand up and protect their rights."

Co-counsel Andrea Weiss Jeffries of Jones Day performed three cross-examinations of defense experts and one direct exam. "We showed that one of the defense experts was not the independent witness he claimed to be," she said. "This was a very important trial--you could feel it in the courtroom. It was complicated and technical and very rewarding to protect this lifesaving cancer therapy that had been ripped off by a competitor."

Lawyers for Kite Pharma and its corporate parent Gilead Sciences Inc. did not return messages seeking comment.

"We remain steadfast in our opinion that Sloan Kettering's patent is not infringed and is invalid," a Gilead spokesman said. "Given that Kite independently developed [competing drug] Yescarta and assumed all of the risk in its discovery and development, we do not believe Sloan Kettering and Juno are entitled to any level of damages."

-- John Roemer