Inovio Pharmaceuticals Inc (INO)

[Lakers_w]

Court-Filed-11/5-As-of-6/18-Ino-had-manufacturing-lined-up-for-at-least-500,000-doses (i.e.,half-the-total-goal)-without-using-VGXI technology

Third, Plaintiffs’ assertion that the Tech Transfer would take “years” is premised solely on self-serving and speculative testimony from VGXI’s CEO in a separate case where VGXI is opposite Inovio. (¶ 91.) Notably, VGXI’s CEO provides no basis to support his estimate, which vastly exceeds the “seven months” it previously took VGXI to perform the Tech Transfer to Richter-Helm. (¶ 92.) See Maresca v. Soufun Holdings Ltd., 2016 WL 6102318, at *7 (C.D. Cal. Oct. 18, 2016) (“speculation, devoid of factual substance, cannot satisfy the pleading standards of the PSLRA”). Moreover, Plaintiffs omit portions of the testimony that contemplate an even shorter
period of only 30 days for the Tech Transfer. (Ex. H at 2–4.)

Fourth, Plaintiffs’ assertion that “Inovio’s ability to be on track to produce one million
doses by the end of 2020 has always been dependent on getting a technology transfer from VGXI” (¶ 108(l)) is unsupported by any well-pled facts. As an initial matter, Plaintiffs proffer no guidance as to what is and is not considered “on track” in this context, and thus fail to establish that Inovio was not “on track” as of May 11, when this statement was made. (¶ 106.) See Avaya, 564 F.3d at 254. In any event, as of June 18, 2020 (i.e., half-way through the year), Inovio had manufacturing lined up for at least 500,000 doses (i.e., half the total goal) without using the VGXI technology. (¶ 105.) Thus, under a common-sense interpretation of that phrase, Inovio was “on track” despite VGXI’s refusal to comply with its contractual obligations.

https://www.law360.com/articles/1326428/attachments/0

PATRICK MCDERMID, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated,
Plaintiff, v.
INOVIO PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., et al., Defendants.
CLASS ACTION

Case 2:20-cv-01402-GJP Document 72-1 Filed 11/05/20 Page 14 of 33