Commitments and Contingencies
|6 Months Ended|
Dec. 31, 2018
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Abstract]|
|Commitments and Contingencies Disclosure [Text Block]||
In September 2013, the Company and Fraunhofer entered into an agreement, the Terms of Settlement for the TTA Seventh Amendment (the “2013 Settlement Agreement”). Under the terms of the 2013 Settlement Agreement, various payment obligations, including accrued payment obligations existing at June 30, 2013, were released, terminated or modified. The significant modifications are as follows:
The Company’s obligation under the TTA, prior to the 2013 Settlement Agreement, to make three $1 million payments to Fraunhofer in April 2013, November 2013, and April 2014 (the “Guaranteed Annual Payments”) was terminated and replaced with an undertaking to engage Fraunhofer for at least $3 million in work requested and directed by iBio before December 31, 2015. As of December 31, 2015, the total engagement of Fraunhofer for such work requested was at least $3.0 million. In addition to the foregoing, the Company sought to engage Fraunhofer for substantial additional other work, but Fraunhofer did not respond to the Company’s requests for proposals for such work.
The Company’s obligation to remit to Fraunhofer minimum annual royalty payments in the amount of $200,000 was terminated. Instead, the 2013 Settlement Agreement provided that, for a period of up to 15 years, the Company would pay Fraunhofer one percent (1%) of all receipts derived by the Company from sales of products produced utilizing the iBioLaunch™ or iBioModulator™ technology and ten percent (10%) of all receipts derived by the Company from licensing those technologies to third parties. The 2013 Settlement Agreement provided for royalty payments to Fraunhofer only on technology license revenues that iBio actually would receive, and on revenues from actual sales by iBio of products derived from the technology developed by Fraunhofer under the TTA, until the later of November 2023 or until such time as the aggregate royalty payments totaled at least $4 million. All new intellectual property invented by Fraunhofer during the period of the TTA is owned by and was required to be transferred to iBio, and Fraunhofer was required to make technology transfer, which Fraunhofer refused to perform. In the lawsuit against Fraunhofer, iBio is seeking rescission of these royalty provisions of the 2013 Settlement Agreement. In any event, the 2013 Settlement Agreement does not apply to, and the Company has no financial obligations to Fraunhofer with respect to, the Company’s use of, or revenues derived from, technologies developed independently of Fraunhofer.
On June 12, 2014, Fiocruz, Fraunhofer and iBio executed an amendment to the CLA (the “Amended Agreement”) to create a new research and development plan for the development of a recombinant Yellow Fever vaccine providing revised reporting, objectives, estimated budget, and project billing process. By its execution of the Amended Agreement, iBio again engaged Fraunhofer to act as the Company’s subcontractor for performance of research and development services for the new research and development plan covered by the Amended Agreement and to have Fraunhofer bill Fiocruz directly on behalf of the Company at the rates, amounts and times provided in the Amended Agreement with the proceeds of such billings and only the proceeds paid to Fraunhofer for its services so the Company’s expense is equal to its revenue and no profit would be recognized for these activities under the Amended Agreement. For the year ended June 30, 2015, $2.1 million in research and development services were performed by Fraunhofer for the Company pursuant to the amended CLA. As of December 31, 2015, the total engagement of Fraunhofer for work requested by iBio was at least $3.0 million. See Note 7 - Significant Vendors for additional information. In addition to the foregoing, the Company sought to engage Fraunhofer for substantial additional other work, but Fraunhofer did not respond to the Company’s requests for proposals for such work.
University of Pittsburgh (“UP”)
On January 14, 2014 (the “Effective Date”), the Company entered into an exclusive worldwide License Agreement (“LA”) with the University of Pittsburgh (“UP”) covering all of the U.S. and foreign patents and patent applications and related intellectual property owned by UP pertinent to the use of endostatin peptides for the treatment of fibrosis. The Company paid an initial license fee of $20,000 and is required to pay all of UP’s patent prosecution costs that were incurred prior to, totaling $30,627, and subsequent to the Effective Date. On each anniversary date the Company is to pay license fees ranging from $25,000 to $150,000 for the first five years and $150,000 on each subsequent anniversary date until the first commercial sale of the licensed technology. Beginning with commercial sales of the technology or approval by the FDA or foreign equivalent, the Company will be required to pay milestone payments, royalties and a percentage of any non-royalty sublicense income to UP.
Lease – Bryan, Texas
As discussed above, iBio CDMO is leasing its facility in Bryan, Texas from the Second Eastern Affiliate under the Sublease. See Note 8 for more details of the Sublease.
The base rent is subject to increase annually in accordance with increases in the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”). The Company incurred rent expense of $54,000 and $0 for the three months ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively, and $66,000 and $15,000 for the six months ended December 31, 2018 and 2017, respectively, related to the increases in the CPI.
On March 17, 2015, the Company filed a Verified Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Fraunhofer and Vidadi Yusibov (“Yusibov”), Fraunhofer’s Executive Director, seeking monetary damages and equitable relief based on Fraunhofer’s material and continuing breaches of their contracts with the Company. On September 16, 2015, the Company voluntarily dismissed its action against Yusibov, without prejudice, and thereafter on September 29, 2015, the Company filed a Verified Amended Complaint against Fraunhofer alleging material breaches of its agreements with the Company and seeking monetary damages and equitable relief against Fraunhofer. The Court bifurcated the action to first resolve the threshold question in the case–the scope of iBio’s ownership of the technology developed or held by Fraunhofer–before proceeding with the rest of the case and the parties stipulated their agreement to that approach. After considering the parties’ written submissions and oral argument, the Court resolved the threshold issue in favor of iBio on July 29, 2016, holding that iBio owns all proprietary rights of any kind to all plant-based technology of Fraunhofer developed or held as of December 31, 2014, including know-how, and was entitled to receive a technology transfer from Fraunhofer. Fraunhofer’s motion to dismiss iBio’s contract claims was denied by the Court on February 24, 2017. The Court at that time also granted, over Fraunhofer’s opposition, iBio’s motion to supplement and amend the Complaint to add additional state law claims against Fraunhofer. Fraunhofer filed an answer and counterclaims in March 2017, but in May 2017, Fraunhofer obtained new counsel, and with iBio’s agreement (as a matter of procedure), filed an amended answer and amended counterclaims in July 2017. The Company replied to those counterclaims on August 9, 2017. In November 2017, the Company engaged new counsel to further lead its litigation efforts, and on November 3, 2017, the Company filed a separate Verified Complaint in the Court of Chancery of the State of Delaware against Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, the European unit of Fraunhofer (the “Second Complaint”). The Second Complaint follows iBio’s pending litigation filed in March 2015, described above, against Fraunhofer USA, Inc., the U.S. unit of Fraunhofer. On December 14, 2018, the Delaware Chancery Court dismissed the Second Complaint filed against Fraunhofer-Gesellschaft, the European unit of Fraunhofer, as untimely filed. The dismissal of the Second Complaint has no effect on the action against the U.S. unit of Fraunhofer.
The Company and Fraunhofer have continued to proceed with discovery. The Company is unable to predict the further outcome of this action at this time.
The entire disclosure for commitments and contingencies.
Reference 1: http://fasb.org/us-gaap/role/ref/legacyRef