Onego Bio and EVERY patent dispute moves to Delaware after Wisconsin jurisdiction ruling

A US federal court has ruled that patent litigation between Onego Bio and The EVERY Company should proceed in Delaware rather than Wisconsin, after determining that the Wisconsin court lacked personal jurisdiction over the defendant.

The decision, issued by District Judge James D. Peterson on May 5, 2026, addressed venue and jurisdictional questions only and did not evaluate the underlying patent or false advertising claims between the two precision fermentation companies.

• A Wisconsin federal court ruled it lacked personal jurisdiction over The EVERY Company in Onego Bio’s Wisconsin action, directing the dispute to proceed in Delaware.
• The dispute centers on patent claims involving recombinant egg proteins and allegations of misleading marketing statements related to protein equivalence.
• Onego Bio said all substantive claims remain active in parallel Delaware litigation, where jurisdiction over both companies is already established.

The case focuses on US Patent No. 12,096,784, owned by The EVERY Company, which covers a recombinant protein designed as a substitute for egg-white protein. Onego is seeking a declaratory judgment that it does not infringe the patent and that the patent itself is invalid. It also accuses EVERY of making misleading claims about how closely its products resemble proteins found naturally in eggs.

Both companies operate in the animal-free egg protein sector using precision fermentation technologies. Onego uses the fungus Trichoderma reesei to produce its proteins, while EVERY relies on the yeast strain Pichia pastoris. According to the ruling, the companies held discussions in 2025 regarding a potential collaboration, including cross-license agreements and a possible merger, before those talks failed.

Judge Peterson focused his opinion on whether the Wisconsin court had authority over the defendant rather than the substance of the patent or false advertising claims.

“Neither party is incorporated in Wisconsin or has a place of business in the state,” the court stated, noting that both companies are incorporated in Delaware and headquartered in California.

Onego argued that EVERY had sufficient contacts with Wisconsin to justify the case proceeding there. The company pointed to alleged implicit threats to enforce the patent, potential product sales in Wisconsin, and lobbying efforts directed toward Wisconsin’s US senators.

The court rejected those arguments.

On the patent claims, Onego alleged that EVERY made “attempts to enforce” the ’784 patent and demand licensing fees. However, the court found no evidence that any alleged enforcement activity had been directed toward Wisconsin.

The ruling noted that Onego had not alleged any meetings, communications, or patent-related interactions with EVERY occurring in Wisconsin.

Judge Peterson also emphasized that personal jurisdiction depended on the defendant’s contacts with the forum state, not simply on alleged effects experienced by the plaintiff.

“The mere fact that defendant’s conduct affected plaintiffs with connections to the forum State does not suffice to authorize jurisdiction,” the ruling stated, citing prior case law.

Onego also cited EVERY's alleged product sales in Wisconsin, arguing that products containing EVERY's proteins could be accessed through websites and third-party retailers.

But the court concluded that even if such sales occurred, they were unrelated to the patent dispute itself.

“Sales of EVERY's own products in Wisconsin have nothing to do with the enforcement or defense of the ’784 patent,” the court wrote.

The court also dismissed arguments related to lobbying efforts. Onego cited a July 2025 joint letter sent by both companies to Wisconsin senators seeking support for biotechnology manufacturing initiatives tied to a Department of Defense program.

While the court acknowledged that the letter could qualify as a contact with Wisconsin, it concluded that the correspondence had no meaningful connection to the patent claims.

The ruling separately addressed Onego’s false advertising allegations, which centered on statements describing EVERY's proteins as “equivalent,” “bio-identical,” and “nature-equivalent” to proteins found in eggs.

Onego argued that those descriptions were misleading because EVERY's proteins were genetically modified and differed in amino acid composition.

However, the court found that Onego had not shown the allegedly misleading statements were directed at Wisconsin consumers or that any alleged harm occurred within the state.

The possibility that products containing EVERY's proteins could be shipped to Wisconsin through third-party retailers was also deemed insufficient to establish jurisdiction.

The court stated that Onego had not demonstrated that Wisconsin consumers had actually purchased such products, that EVERY knew products were being sold into Wisconsin, or that any purchases were connected to the allegedly misleading statements.

Onego also cited an online article claiming that products containing EVERY's protein were sold in Walmart stores across the USA. The court said the article was inadmissible hearsay and noted that it did not identify a source for the claims.

The ruling further noted that the article suggested products containing EVERY's ingredients did not publicly disclose the company’s involvement, weakening any argument that Wisconsin consumers were influenced by the alleged advertising statements.

Ultimately, Judge Peterson concluded that Onego had not established even a preliminary basis for jurisdictional discovery in Wisconsin.

The existence of parallel litigation in Delaware also influenced the court’s reasoning. Because EVERY is incorporated in Delaware, courts there can exercise jurisdiction over the company regardless of whether its activities were connected to the state.

“In light of the substantial questions about personal jurisdiction in this case, it would make sense to dismiss this case and allow the claims to proceed in a forum where personal jurisdiction is established,” the court stated.

Following the ruling, Arturo Elizondo, Co-founder & CEO of The EVERY Company, welcomed the decision. “Today is an important day for The EVERY Company and for our industry,” he said. “Lawsuits are a waste of time and money. Our space doesn’t need expensive distractions. Our space needs builders. It needs all of our focus and resources to go towards building a better food system – not litigation.”

Elizondo added: “We’re thrilled to see the Court dismiss this lawsuit, so we can get back to what really matters.”

He further stated: “We invested a lot of time and resources to build one of the most extensive IP estates in our industry including our foundational Ovalbumin patents granted in the USA, Finland, UK, Germany, and many other jurisdictions. Our customers, our investors, and our team members value what we’ve built, and we will always defend it.”

Onego Bio, meanwhile, described the Wisconsin decision as procedural and said the underlying litigation would now continue in Delaware.

“Onego Bio welcomes the selection of Delaware as the jurisdiction to resolve patent litigation against EVERY,” the company stated. “The judge said that his decision is purely jurisdictional. Now that this important procedural first step has been taken, the case is now fully focused in the premier location for IP litigation.”

The company said the purpose of the litigation was “to remove invalid patents from the marketplace so that all companies in the space can innovate fairly, transparently, and without the threat and fear of artificial monopolies.”

Onego also stated that “all of Onego’s claims remain entirely intact and the business of litigating will now begin.”

The company said it intentionally filed in both Delaware and Wisconsin for different reasons, describing Delaware as “the country's leading forum for complex biotech patent disputes,” while noting that Wisconsin was selected because it will host Onego’s first manufacturing site.

Onego further stated that discovery activity conducted during the Wisconsin proceedings had already produced information it believed supported its claims.

“As anticipated, significant progress was made in the initial discovery in Wisconsin,” the company stated. “Onego learned and confirmed some very important facts which identified strong evidence to support Onego’s claims – all of which are now publicly available and will be used in Delaware.”

Maija Itkonen, Co-founder & CEO of Onego Bio, also commented on the dispute. “Our products are built on a solid foundation and originate from one of the most trusted innovation ecosystems in the world,” Itkonen said. “We believe markets thrive through open competition, where lasting value comes from genuine performance, long-term scientific research, and transparent business practices.”

She added: “We also believe in a world where integrity is a core value. One where progress is not achieved by distorting facts, manipulating others’ words, or avoiding responsibility, but by facing situations as they are and addressing them directly and responsibly.”

The Wisconsin ruling addressed jurisdictional questions only, while related litigation between the parties remains ongoing in Delaware.