A court in Delaware has dismissed a high-profile lawsuit filed by Onego Bio against The EVERY Company, ending a protracted and ugly legal dispute between the two firms, which both make egg proteins via precision fermentation.
The EVERY Co welcomed the news, arguing that the case was “meritless from the start,” while Onego Bio argued that the judge’s order provided useful “clarity.”
The move follows a dismissal of a parallel suit vs EVERY in Wisconsin in May, and ends the case in its entirety.
The legal food fight—initiated by Onego Bio last fall—relates to the production of ovalbumin, the primary protein in egg white, via engineered microbes. The dispute centered on whether Onego—which uses a strain of the fungus Trichoderma reesei as its production host—is infringing a “foundational” patent from EVERY covering ovalbumin expression in a range of hosts.
In its complaint* Onego Bio claimed that it had been forced to sue in order to lift the “cloud” hanging over its business and clarify that it is not infringing the patent in question because it is “invalid and unenforceable.”
According to Onego, EVERY demanded “unwarranted patent licensing fees” and engaged in tortious interference by telling potential investors that Onego needed a patent license from EVERY or would be infringing its IP.
EVERY in turn alleged that “Onego has at all times been the only antagonist and issuer of threats while EVERY has consistently counseled against litigation.”
Judge: Onego played the instigator, EVERY sought to ‘deescalate’
In a memo and order filed on October 9, US district judge Joshua D. Wolson said Onego Bio had “tried to egg The EVERY Co into a fight over IP” but that EVERY “refused to take the bait.”
As in the previous ruling in Wisconsin, the court did not make any determination on the validity of ‘784 or whether Onego is breaching it, and did not seek to determine whether it is accurately describing or falsely advertising its products.
Instead, Judge Wolson explained that the court has no subject matter jurisdiction to make a declaratory judgment that Onego is not infringing EVERY’s IP. “The evidence before me doesn’t show that EVERY did anything to assert its rights against Onego. On the contrary, the facts make clear that Onego played the instigator. But picking a fight with a perceived competitor isn’t enough to establish declaratory judgment jurisdiction.”
He added: “The record reveals that EVERY continued to respond to Onego’s threats of litigation by trying to deescalate and find potential business solutions.”
Meanwhile, Onego’s allegation that EVERY’s CEO told potential investors in Onego that Onego might be infringing EVERY’s patents was impossible to verify, claimed the judge. “EVERY’s alleged statements to third parties—outside of [Onego CTO] Mr. Landowski’s presence—have little to no probative value. Mr [Arturo] Elizondo [EVERY’s CEO] denies that he told the investor that Onego is infringing an EVERY patent. And because Mr Landowski was not part of those discussions, he is not in a position to rebut Mr Elizondo’s denial.”
As for Onego Bio’s claims that EVERY engaged in false advertising by presenting its egg proteins as bio-identical to those in chicken eggs, he said, Onego has not demonstrated that it has suffered any injury as a result given that it is not yet on the market and lacks standing to assert such a claim.
“Absent ongoing operations, it is not plausible that Onego and EVERY ‘are competitors in the same market space.’ At most, Onego’s allegations suggest that it hopes to enter the US market and become EVERY’s competitor.”
EVERY Co: ‘lawsuit was meritless from the start’
The EVERY Co welcomed the ruling, telling AgFunderNews that, “We are grateful for the Court’s careful review of this matter and decision to dismiss Onego’s claims.
“For more than a decade, we have developed our technology and the patent estate that protects it. We will continue to advance that technology, invest in our intellectual property, and vigorously defend our position. Onego’s lawsuit was meritless from the start, and we appreciate the Court’s decision to dismiss it in full.”
Onego Bio: ruling provides welcome clarity
Despite having its case tossed, Onego Bio said the ruling was in fact good news, as it provided “clarity.”
Although the court did not investigate the validity of the ‘784 patent itself, Onego Bio noted in a lengthy statement that the court had found that “EVERY’s reported statements to investors, even if made, were ‘forms of puffing rather than actual threats.’
“It also noted that EVERY ‘touted’ its patent portfolio while declining to say how any of its patents would apply to Onego. Onego’s Trichoderma technology is fundamentally different, and EVERY’s patent does not disclose how to make ovalbumin that way.”
Onego Bio cofounder and CEO Maija Itkonen added: “We took proactive steps to protect technology built over decades of research at [Finnish research institute] VTT, and enable a fair marketplace where companies compete with products, prices and availability. We welcome the decision that there is no infringement claim against Onego, no challenge to our freedom to operate, and no litigation between us anymore.”
Given that Onego Bio initiated the litigation and failed in its bid to secure a declaratory judgment regarding infringement, celebrating the fact there is “no litigation between us anymore” might seem odd.
The judge also noted that EVERY has “no obligation to make a definitive determination, at the time and place of Onego’s choosing, that it will never bring an infringement suit”
However, a spokesperson told AgFunderNews: “Our efforts were proactive and in search of clarity. This decision has provided that clarity.”
Itkonen added: “Our team is busy shipping metric tons of Bioalbumen and selling to US customers, and the response has been incredible.”
As for EVERY’s patents, added the firm, patent offices outside of the US “have examined applications in the same patent family. The Japan Patent Office and the Korean Intellectual Property Office have rejected EVERY’s counterpart applications. The Mexican Institute of Industrial Property has raised objections to all pending claims, and the European Patent Office has issued a preliminary opinion that EVERY’s European patent claims contain added subject matter, which is a ground for revocation.
“Onego will continue to follow these proceedings in the interest of a fair, competitive industry. Built on its VTT heritage, Onego has a strong IP position, and to date no one has challenged it.”
Harassment, false advertising claims, merger talks
Onego Bio—which is planning a manufacturing facility in Wisconsin—has claimed that “EVERY’s continued threats” directly impacted Onego’s ability to “secure investment, finalize business plans, and continue to move forward with its expansion.”
EVERY in turn argued that Onego initiated contact seeking a license to EVERY’s patents and “repeatedly threatened to burden EVERY with expensive litigation” if it were not granted.
In recent court filings, EVERY described the lawsuit as the culmination of a “months-long effort to harass EVERY into granting Onego access to EVERY’s IP.”
Onego in turn said it had a right to “remove the cloud over its business,” and that EVERY was “leveraging its patent rights as a strategic weapon.”
It went on to accuse EVERY of engaging in false advertising by misrepresenting its products as bio-identical to egg proteins and claimed EVERY had tried to “force a merger” to access Onego’s manufacturing capabilities and technology, “which actually does create products equivalent to natural egg proteins.
EVERY, in turn, said that the amino acid sequence of its ovalbumin “is identical to native chicken ovalbumin.” It also disputed Onego’s claim that an investor was considering investing $50 million in Onego but pulled back due to “infringement concerns.”
*The case is Onego Bio Inc v Clara Foods (d.b.a. The EVERY Company) in the US District Court for the District of DElaware. Case 1:25-cv-01131
Further reading:
Foodtech IP fight escalates as The EVERY Company and Onego Bio trade accusations
The EVERY Co and Onego Bio eyed merger before IP talks went south, court docs reveal
