Delaware court throws out Onego Bio's case against The EVERY Company over egg protein patent
A Delaware judge dismissed all three of Onego Bio's claims against The EVERY Company on 9 October, without ruling on US patent 12,096,784 itself.
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware has dismissed the lawsuit that the Finnish precision fermentation company Onego Bio brought against Clara Foods, trading as The EVERY Company, over the patent covering recombinant egg white protein. Judge Joshua D. Wolson signed the memorandum and order on 9 October 2026 in case 1:25-cv-01131, granting EVERY's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in full. AgFunderNews reported the decision on 11 October. The court did not rule on whether EVERY's patent is valid, and it did not rule on whether Onego infringes it.
All three of Onego's claims fell, each on a different procedural ground. The request for a declaratory judgment that US Patent No. 12,096,784 is invalid, unenforceable and not infringed was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction: the court found no definite and concrete dispute at the time the suit was filed, and no affirmative act by EVERY asserting the patent against Onego. The Lanham Act false advertising claim was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of statutory standing, the court holding that Onego had pleaded neither proximate causation nor injury to its own commercial interests. The tortious interference claim under Delaware law was dismissed as conceded. The judge opened by writing that Onego had “tried to egg The EVERY Co. into a fight over intellectual property,” but that “EVERY refused to take the bait.” He added that “picking a fight with a perceived competitor isn't enough to establish declaratory judgment jurisdiction,” and that “the facts make clear that Onego played the instigator.” Statements EVERY was alleged to have made to investors were, in the court's reading, “forms of puffing rather than actual threats directed against Onego and its products.”
The patent at issue, US 12,096,784, is titled “Protein Compositions And Consumable Products Thereof” and covers the production of recombinant ovalbumin, the main protein in egg white. Onego Bio was founded in Finland in 2022 as a spin-out from VTT, the Finnish state technical research centre, by Maija Itkonen and Dr Chris Landowski, and makes its Bioalbumen ingredient with an engineered strain of the fungus Trichoderma reesei. EVERY produces its egg proteins in the yeast Komagataella phaffii. Onego filed in the autumn of 2025 seeking a declaration that the patent could not be enforced against it, having accused EVERY of demanding licensing fees it considered unwarranted. A parallel suit Onego brought in Wisconsin was dismissed earlier for want of personal jurisdiction over EVERY, which is based in California, leaving the Delaware case as the only live one until last week.
Both sides claimed something from the outcome. EVERY said it was “grateful for the Court's careful review of this matter and decision to dismiss Onego's claims,” and that it will “continue to advance that technology, invest in our intellectual property, and vigorously defend our position.” Maija Itkonen, chief executive of Onego Bio, said the company welcomes “the decision that there is no infringement claim against Onego,” and a spokesperson said the effort had been “proactive and in search of clarity” and that “this decision has provided that clarity.” That reading sits awkwardly with the order, which expressly declined to decide infringement and noted that EVERY has no obligation to commit never to sue and may assert the patent in future. Onego alleged in the case that it lost a reported 50 million dollar investment over infringement concerns, a claim EVERY disputes.
Why it matters for AgTech founders: this is a lesson about who gets to choose the venue in a freedom to operate fight, and it cost a well funded company a year. Onego did not wait to be sued. It went to court to have a rival's patent declared unenforceable, which is a legitimate move when a patent is holding up a financing or a customer contract. The problem is the threshold. A declaratory judgment needs a real and immediate dispute, and in US practice that normally means the patent holder has done something affirmative: a cease and desist letter, a written licensing demand, a complaint to one of your customers. Market talk, including what a competitor may be saying to your investors, generally does not clear the bar, and the court here read those statements as puffery. The practical consequence for a deep tech founder is that the paperwork decides the forum. If you want the option of an early declaratory action, you need the other side's assertion on the record, which means logging every licensing approach and every investor conversation that referenced the patent, with dates and names, from first contact. Without that, the cheaper routes are administrative: an opposition at the European Patent Office, an inter partes review in the United States, or simply designing around the claims. The standing point deserves attention too. The false advertising claim failed in part because the court found Onego is not yet on the market, so it could not show injury to commercial interests. A company that is pre-revenue has fewer remedies against a rival talking it down, which is one more argument for booking first revenue earlier than the technology roadmap alone would suggest. And the patent is still standing. Anyone building in recombinant egg protein should treat this question as open rather than settled, and price a licence or a design-around into the plan rather than a court win.
Delaware court throws out Onego Bio's case against The EVERY Company over egg protein patent
A Delaware judge dismissed all three claims in the Finnish company's suit on jurisdiction, standing and concession rather than on the merits. The patent itself was never tested, and EVERY says it will keep defending it.
The United States District Court for the District of Delaware has dismissed the lawsuit that the Finnish precision fermentation company Onego Bio brought against Clara Foods, trading as The EVERY Company, over the patent covering recombinant egg white protein. Judge Joshua D. Wolson signed the memorandum and order on 9 October 2026 in case 1:25-cv-01131, granting EVERY's motion to dismiss the amended complaint in full. AgFunderNews reported the decision on 11 October. The court did not rule on whether EVERY's patent is valid, and it did not rule on whether Onego infringes it.
All three of Onego's claims fell, each on a different procedural ground. The request for a declaratory judgment that US Patent No. 12,096,784 is invalid, unenforceable and not infringed was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(1) for lack of subject matter jurisdiction: the court found no definite and concrete dispute at the time the suit was filed, and no affirmative act by EVERY asserting the patent against Onego. The Lanham Act false advertising claim was dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of statutory standing, the court holding that Onego had pleaded neither proximate causation nor injury to its own commercial interests. The tortious interference claim under Delaware law was dismissed as conceded. The judge opened by writing that Onego had “tried to egg The EVERY Co. into a fight over intellectual property,” but that “EVERY refused to take the bait.” He added that “picking a fight with a perceived competitor isn't enough to establish declaratory judgment jurisdiction,” and that “the facts make clear that Onego played the instigator.” Statements EVERY was alleged to have made to investors were, in the court's reading, “forms of puffing rather than actual threats directed against Onego and its products.”
The patent at issue, US 12,096,784, is titled “Protein Compositions And Consumable Products Thereof” and covers the production of recombinant ovalbumin, the main protein in egg white. Onego Bio was founded in Finland in 2022 as a spin-out from VTT, the Finnish state technical research centre, by Maija Itkonen and Dr Chris Landowski, and makes its Bioalbumen ingredient with an engineered strain of the fungus Trichoderma reesei. EVERY produces its egg proteins in the yeast Komagataella phaffii. Onego filed in the autumn of 2025 seeking a declaration that the patent could not be enforced against it, having accused EVERY of demanding licensing fees it considered unwarranted. A parallel suit Onego brought in Wisconsin was dismissed earlier for want of personal jurisdiction over EVERY, which is based in California, leaving the Delaware case as the only live one until last week.
Both sides claimed something from the outcome. EVERY said it was “grateful for the Court's careful review of this matter and decision to dismiss Onego's claims,” and that it will “continue to advance that technology, invest in our intellectual property, and vigorously defend our position.” Maija Itkonen, chief executive of Onego Bio, said the company welcomes “the decision that there is no infringement claim against Onego,” and a spokesperson said the effort had been “proactive and in search of clarity” and that “this decision has provided that clarity.” That reading sits awkwardly with the order, which expressly declined to decide infringement and noted that EVERY has no obligation to commit never to sue and may assert the patent in future. Onego alleged in the case that it lost a reported 50 million dollar investment over infringement concerns, a claim EVERY disputes.
Why it matters for AgTech founders: this is a lesson about who gets to choose the venue in a freedom to operate fight, and it cost a well funded company a year. Onego did not wait to be sued. It went to court to have a rival's patent declared unenforceable, which is a legitimate move when a patent is holding up a financing or a customer contract. The problem is the threshold. A declaratory judgment needs a real and immediate dispute, and in US practice that normally means the patent holder has done something affirmative: a cease and desist letter, a written licensing demand, a complaint to one of your customers. Market talk, including what a competitor may be saying to your investors, generally does not clear the bar, and the court here read those statements as puffery. The practical consequence for a deep tech founder is that the paperwork decides the forum. If you want the option of an early declaratory action, you need the other side's assertion on the record, which means logging every licensing approach and every investor conversation that referenced the patent, with dates and names, from first contact. Without that, the cheaper routes are administrative: an opposition at the European Patent Office, an inter partes review in the United States, or simply designing around the claims. The standing point deserves attention too. The false advertising claim failed in part because the court found Onego is not yet on the market, so it could not show injury to commercial interests. A company that is pre-revenue has fewer remedies against a rival talking it down, which is one more argument for booking first revenue earlier than the technology roadmap alone would suggest. And the patent is still standing. Anyone building in recombinant egg protein should treat this question as open rather than settled, and price a licence or a design-around into the plan rather than a court win.
