News | June 16, 2026
New offering bridges the gap between technology expectations and real-world performance, helping clients manage disputes, remediation efforts, and emerging technologies.
November 18, 2024
Richard Manning provided trial testimony that contributed to a decisive legal victory for biotech startup Inhibrx in a $460 million trade secrets case brought by I-Mab Biopharma in Delaware federal district court.
Secretariat was engaged by law firms Potter Anderson and Wilson Sonsini to provide expert testimony and respond to Plaintiff’s damages claims for this case on behalf of their clients, Inhibrx Biosciences and Inhibrix co-founder Dr. Brendan Eckelman.
On November 1, 2024, a federal jury in the US District Court for the District of Delaware unanimously sided with Inhibrx, rejecting all allegations of misappropriation and finding that the data in question did not qualify as legally-protectable trade secrets.
“I am pleased that my testimony was accepted by the court and helped the jury reach a verdict,” said Dr. Manning. “I trust that my economic analysis, combined with my prior experience in the biopharmaceutical industry, helped the jury understand the facts of this complex, high-stakes case.”
I-Mab filed the lawsuit on March 1, 2022, claiming that Inhibrx and Dr. Eckleman misappropriated confidential information related to I-Mab research projects during prior arbitration proceedings involving I-Mab, for which Dr. Eckelman had served as an expert witness. The Delaware jury found no basis for these claims and awarded the plaintiff $0 in damages, based in part on Dr. Manning’s testimony. The jury’s findings marked a complete victory for Inhibrx and Dr. Eckelman.
Read more about this case on Law360 (subscription required).
New offering bridges the gap between technology expectations and real-world performance, helping clients manage disputes, remediation efforts, and emerging technologies.
What Companies Should Be Watching in Securities Enforcement for the Remainder of 2026
Companies face a shifting securities enforcement landscape in H2 2026, where AI, digital assets, prediction markets, and parallel investigations create new risks even as financial reporting and controls remain core priorities driving more targeted, tech-focused, and multi-agency scrutiny.
Algorithmic Pricing, Antitrust Risk, and the Role of Economic Analysis
Recent DOJ settlements and new California and New York legislation are clarifying antitrust risks around algorithmic pricing. This article examines key enforcement themes, high-risk forms of data sharing and information exchange, and the role of economic analysis in assessing algorithm design, adoption, competitive effects, and compliance risk.