Legal Proceedings
−Removed: We are currently pursuing claims in two lawsuits that we filed in 2022 against Shoreline Biosciences, Inc.
+Added: During the reporting period, we pursued claims in two lawsuits that we filed in 2022 against Shoreline Biosciences, Inc.
(Shoreline) and certain of its founders and officers (collectively, the Shoreline litigations).
−Removed: The first suit, filed on May 13, 2022, is pending in San Diego Superior Court against Shoreline and four of its founders, Drs.
+Added: The first suit, filed on May 13, 2022, was pending in San Diego Superior Court against Shoreline and four of its founders, Drs.
Kaufman (Kaufman), Kleanthis G.
−Removed: Xanthopoulos, Steven Holtzman, and William Sandborn.
−Removed: Our claims stem from Kaufman’s founding of and participation in Shoreline’s business, in breach of his exclusivity obligations to us as our scientific advisor pursuant to a Scientific Advisor Agreement between Kaufman and the Company.
−Removed: Our claims include actions for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and deceit, tortious interference, restitution and unfair competition.
−Removed: Fact and expert discovery is ongoing, and we are seeking monetary damages.
−Removed: Trial is presently scheduled to begin on July 19, 2024.
+Added: Xanthopoulos, and Messrs.
+Added: William Sandborn and Steven Holtzman.
+Added: Our claims included actions for breach of contract, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, fraud and deceit, tortious interference, restitution and unfair competition.
+Added: On August 9, 2024, the court denied the defendants’ motions for summary judgment preserving for trial all of Fate’s claims against the defendants, with the exception of defendants’ motions with respect to certain theories under Fate’s tortious interference claim (which claim by Fate was otherwise preserved for trial).
+Added: On September 19, 2024, the court denied defendants’ motion for reconsideration of its summary judgment ruling.
+Added: Trial began on October 21, 2024, with a jury selected on October 24, 2024.
+Added: On October 28, 2024, the parties entered a settlement agreement resolving the litigation on terms agreeable to all parties, pursuant to which we filed a request for dismissal with prejudice of all claims on October 31, 2024.
In the second of the Shoreline litigations, also filed on May 13, 2022, we and Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research (Whitehead) filed a lawsuit in the U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of California against Shoreline and Kaufman seeking monetary damages for the defendants’ infringement of U.S.
−Removed: 8,071,369, 8,932,856, 8,951,797, 8,940,536, 9,169,490, 10,457,917, and 10,017,744 (the Whitehead Patents).
−Removed: The Whitehead Patents, which we exclusively license from Whitehead, relate to key compositions and methods for reprogramming human somatic cells to a pluripotent state in the generation of iPSCs.
−Removed: 2023, we and Whitehead filed a motion to dismiss our patent infringement claims against Kaufman in his personal capacity;
+Added: 8,071,369, 8,932,856, 8,951,797, 8,940,536, 9,169,490, 10,457,917, and 10,017,744.
+Added: On June 7, 2023, we and Whitehead filed a motion to dismiss our patent infringement claims against Kaufman in his personal capacity;
that motion was granted on June 9, 2023.
−Removed: On July 14, 2023 each party filed motions for summary judgment.
On August 30, 2023, the court granted Shoreline’s motion for summary judgment and denied our motion for partial summary judgment as moot.
Judgment in favor of Shoreline was entered on August 31, 2023.
−Removed: On October 16, 2023, the district court denied Shoreline’s motion for an award of costs and attorney’s fees.
On September 27, 2023, we and Whitehead filed a Notice of Appeal with the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit challenging the trial court’s claim construction and grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants;
the defendants cross-appealed challenging the district court’s earlier denial of a motion to dismiss and partial motion for summary judgment on other grounds.
−Removed: The Federal Circuit docketed the case on October 5, 2023.
−Removed: There can be no assurance that we will prevail on any such appeal.
−Removed: We filed our opening appeal brief on February 2, 2024.
+Added: The Federal Circuit docketed the case on October 5, 2023, and briefing was completed on June 26, 2024.
+Added: On October 28, 2024, the parties entered a settlement agreement resolving the litigation on terms agreeable to all parties, pursuant to which the parties filed a joint notice of dismissal of the appeal and cross-appeal on October 31, 2024.
On January 20, 2023, a purported stockholder of the Company filed a securities class action lawsuit against the Company and certain of its officers captioned Hadian v.
3 unchanged sentences
On July 24, 2023, the lead plaintiff filed an amended complaint.
−Removed: The amended complaint alleges that the Company violated the federal securities laws by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions in its public disclosures dating back to August 2020 relating to our collaboration agreement with Janssen Biotech, Inc.
+Added: The amended complaint alleged that the Company violated the federal securities laws by making allegedly false and/or misleading statements and/or omissions in its public disclosures dating back to August 2020 relating to our collaboration agreement with Janssen Biotech, Inc.
(the Janssen Agreement), potential product candidates subject to the Janssen Agreement, and the termination of the Janssen Agreement.
−Removed: On September 22, 2023, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint in its entirety.
−Removed: Briefing on our motion to dismiss was completed on December 6, 2023.
−Removed: The court may, in its discretion, either hold oral argument on the motion to dismiss or issue a ruling on the motion based upon the parties’ briefing.
+Added: On September 22, 2023, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint.
+Added: On September 19, 2024, the court granted our motion to dismiss the amended
+Added: complaint, with leave for plaintiff to file a second amended complaint.
+Added: On October 18, 2024, the lead plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging substantially similar facts and claims as in the prior amended complaint.
+Added: We filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint on November 18, 2024, and briefing on the motion was completed on January 21, 2025.
We intend to continue to vigorously defend against this action.
1 unchanged sentence
Wolchko, et al., was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the U.S.
−Removed: District Court for the Southern District of California.
−Removed: The derivative lawsuit names members of our board of directors and certain officers as defendants.
−Removed: The Company is named as a nominal defendant.
−Removed: The plaintiff asserts derivative claims arising out of substantially the same alleged facts and circumstances as the Securities Action.
−Removed: The complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violation of federal securities laws.
−Removed: On August 14, 2023, the court stayed the derivative lawsuit pending the court’s decision on our motion to dismiss in the Securities Action filed September 22, 2023.
−Removed: We intend to vigorously defend against this action.
+Added: District Court for the Southern District of California (the Guarino Action).
+Added: On June 12, 2024, an additional derivative complaint, captioned Horrobin v.
+Added: Wolchko, et al., was filed by a purported stockholder of the Company in the same district (the Horrobin Action).
+Added: On December 3, 2024, the court entered an order consolidating the Guarino Action and the Horrobin Action under the caption In re Fate Therapeutics, Inc.
+Added: Derivative Litigation (the Derivative Action) and staying the Derivative Action pending the court’s decision on our motion to dismiss the second amended complaint in the Securities Action.
+Added: The court’s ruling on the motion is pending.
+Added: The Derivative Action names members of our board of directors and certain officers as defendants.
+Added: The Company is also named as a nominal defendant.
+Added: The plaintiffs in the Derivative Actions assert derivative claims arising out of substantially the same alleged facts and circumstances as the Securities Action.
+Added: The Guarino complaint asserts claims for breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, abuse of control, gross mismanagement, waste of corporate assets, and violation of federal securities laws.
+Added: The Horrobin complaint asserts substantially similar claims in addition to a claim of breach of fiduciary duty for insider trading.
+Added: We intend to vigorously defend against the Derivative Action.
From time to time, we may be subject to various other legal proceedings and claims that arise in the ordinary course of our business activities.
2 unchanged sentences
Compared sentence by sentence after normalising whitespace, quotation marks, case and digits, so re-formatting and restated figures do not read as changed language. Wording changes appear as one removal and one addition. The current filing and the prior one are authoritative.