Opinion ID: 2967800
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: 2d 674, 681 (Del. Ch. 1978).

Text: IGEN did not allege, much less establish, that HLR existed for no other purpose than to commit fraud. Both IGEN and the district court focused their alter ego analysis on HLR’s role in an isolated set of transactions relating to the Serono patent. That focus was too narrow. None of the evidence in the summary judgment record persuades us that HLR, a corporate relative of Roche, was the alter ego of Roche. IGEN INTERNATIONAL v. ROCHE DIAGNOSTICS GMBH 7 A. Section 13.1 of the parties’ agreement states that [n]either party shall enter into any settlement that affects the other party’s rights or interests without such other party’s written consent. IGEN argues, and the district court found, that HLR’s purchase of the Serono patent for $15 million constituted an unauthorized settlement by Roche that affected IGEN’s rights and interests. Roche counters that, with or without HLR’s purchase, the Serono patent would still exist and would remain a threat to IGEN’s patent rights. The mere substitution of parties did not, according to Roche, impact IGEN’s rights or interests at all, and summary judgment on Count Twelve was therefore improper. We disagree. Reviewing the grant of summary judgment de novo, Moore Bros. Co. v. Brown & Root, Inc., 207 F.3d 717, 722 (4th Cir. 2000), we find that Roche’s view of what affects the other party’s rights or interests is too narrow. The plain meaning of section 13.1 supports the district court’s conclusion that the loss of Roche as a co-defendant in the Serono litigation affected IGEN’s interests. As co-defendants, IGEN and Roche undoubtedly could have shared trial strategy and most certainly had already shared confidential information and technology. Once HLR became the Serono plaintiff and dismissed Roche as a defendant, IGEN not only lost the benefit of a trial partner, it saw its confidences transferred, through Roche and HLR’s corporate affiliation, to its opponent. To be sure, these events did not destroy or defeat IGEN’s rights or interests, but they certainly affected them. Because we must accept the district court’s determination that Roche and HLR were the same entity in this transaction, we affirm the grant of summary judgment on Count Twelve.