Caselaw Digest
Caselaw Digest

Exelogen Inc v The University of Birmingham

[2023] EWHC 1523 (Comm)
Exelogen sued the University for breaking a deal about a new drug. The University admitted breaking the deal, but said Exelogen couldn't have succeeded anyway because they didn't have enough money. The judge agreed with the University and said Exelogen didn't lose anything substantial.

Key Facts

  • Exelogen Inc (Claimant) sued the University of Birmingham (Defendant) for breach of contract, breach of confidence (abandoned), unjust enrichment (abandoned), and vicarious liability (abandoned).
  • The contract concerned commercializing research on Exenatide for treating idiopathic intracranial hypertension (IIH).
  • The Defendant admitted breach of contract but disputed causation and quantum.
  • The Claimant had an exclusive option to negotiate a license until June 30, 2019 (extendable to June 30, 2020).
  • The Defendant breached the contract in November 2018 by negotiating with another entity.
  • The Claimant argued it had a substantial chance of securing funding and a license, citing potential investment from Electrocore and personal investment from its directors.
  • The Defendant argued the Claimant had no realistic prospect of securing funding, and a license would not have been granted without sufficient funding and a viable commercialization plan.
  • The Claimant failed to secure any significant funding before the breach.
  • Electrocore did not commit to investment, and the JP Morgan conference offered little prospect of securing the required funds.
  • The alleged US$7.5 million Electrocore valuation was based on a false premise (exclusive license, not option to negotiate).
  • The Defendant assigned its patent rights to Invex Therapeutics Pty Limited in March 2019.

Legal Principles

Lost opportunity claims require proof of a real or substantial chance, not a speculative one.

Allied Maples v. Simmons and Simmons [1995] 1 WLR 1602

Unjust enrichment is generally only available where there is no valid contract or the contract implies payment for services.

Benedetti v Sawiris [2013] UKSC 50; Marks and Spencer Plc v. BNP Paribas Securities Services Trust Co (Jersey) Limited [2015] UKSC 72

Damages for breach of contract are assessed at the date of breach, unless injustice would result.

Chitty on Contract, 34th Ed. Vol 1 paragraph 29-105

Outcomes

Claim dismissed.

The Claimant failed to establish that the breach of contract deprived it of anything more than a speculative chance of obtaining a license. The Claimant did not have a realistic prospect of securing the necessary funding to bring the product to market.

Damages assessed (obiter) at US$771,000.

This figure represents a 20% probability of the claimant obtaining a license, applied to the estimated net profits (US$3.85 million) after adjustments for risks and costs.

Similar Cases

Caselaw Digest Caselaw Digest

UK Case Law Digest provides comprehensive summaries of the latest judgments from the United Kingdom's courts. Our mission is to make case law more accessible and understandable for legal professionals and the public.

Stay Updated

Subscribe to our newsletter for the latest case law updates and legal insights.

© 2025 UK Case Law Digest. All rights reserved.

Information provided without warranty. Not intended as legal advice.