Wuhan Healthgen v. ExpressTec & InVitria: rHSA Patent Suit Transferred to Kansas
Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology and Healthgen Biotechnology filed suit in Delaware against ExpressTec, InVitria, and Ventria Bioscience over three patents covering plant-derived recombinant human serum albumin (rHSA) products. Before reaching the merits, the Delaware District Court granted a transfer to the District of Kansas — a significant procedural pivot just 177 days after filing.
Plant-derived rHSA patents land in Kansas after Delaware transfer
On 11 March 2024, Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corporation and its affiliate Healthgen Biotechnology Co., Ltd. filed a patent infringement action in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, targeting ExpressTec LLC, InVitria, Inc., and Ventria Bioscience, Inc. The complaint centred on three US patents — US9951100B2, US10183984B2, and US10730926B2 — all directed to plant-derived recombinant human serum albumin (rHSA) products, a biotechnology platform with significant applications in cell culture media, biopharmaceutical manufacturing, and clinical diagnostics.
Before any substantive merits ruling could be reached, the court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer venue on 20 August 2024, directing the case to the United States District Court for the District of Kansas. The transfer was ordered under the governing statutory and discretionary standards for venue convenience, suggesting the court found that the balance of factors — including witness location, evidence, and party connections — favoured Kansas over Delaware. The case was formally closed in Delaware on 4 September 2024.
A resolution in 177 days without any merits adjudication is consistent with courts acting swiftly on threshold venue motions when the defendants’ commercial activities and operational centres are demonstrably remote from the chosen forum. The public record does not disclose the specific factual findings the court relied upon, nor whether plaintiffs contested the transfer vigorously. What remains unknown is how the litigation will progress in Kansas — including whether additional motions, claim construction, or settlement discussions will follow in the transferee court.
Filing to Case Transferred in 177 days
177 days from filing to transfer order — resolved before any substantive merits ruling
Case transferred to Kansas: what a venue change means for both parties
What a transfer order actually means
A transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) moves a case to a more convenient district without deciding it on the merits. The Delaware court found that the balance of convenience and justice favoured the District of Kansas. No findings on infringement, validity, or damages were made. The litigation continues in full in the transferee court, preserving all claims and defences.
No merits adjudicationPlaintiffs must now litigate on defendants’ home ground
For Wuhan Healthgen and Healthgen Biotechnology, the transfer is a setback in forum strategy. Delaware is a preferred venue for patent plaintiffs due to its experienced IP judiciary and neutral standing. Litigating in Kansas typically means adapting to a less patent-specialised docket, potentially higher travel and logistical costs, and a local jury pool less familiar with complex biotech disputes. Their infringement claims remain intact but the tactical landscape has shifted.
Forum advantage lostDefendants secure a more convenient venue before discovery
ExpressTec, InVitria, and Ventria Bioscience — all with apparent operational ties to Kansas — secured a meaningful procedural win by moving the dispute to their preferred forum before any discovery or claim construction. Litigating at home reduces costs, improves witness accessibility, and may influence jury composition. Critically, this transfer was won on convenience grounds, not the merits, so invalidity and non-infringement arguments remain fully available.
Home forum securedrHSA IP enforcement shifts to a new jurisdictional arena
For the plant-derived recombinant protein sector, this transfer signals that even well-funded biotech patent plaintiffs face real venue scrutiny when targeting companies with concentrated operations outside Delaware. Companies commercialising rHSA and related cell culture media products should monitor the Kansas proceedings closely — the three asserted patents remain live and any merits ruling will carry significant weight for the broader market.
Kansas proceedings ongoingFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology Corporation | Company | Biotechnology companies — holders of US9951100B2, US10183984B2 & US10730926B2 covering plant-derived rHSASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Healthgen Biotechnology Co., Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | ExpressTec LLC | Company | ExpressTec LLC, InVitria Inc., and Ventria Bioscience Inc. — producers of recombinant protein and cell culture productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | InVitria, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Ventria Bioscience, Inc. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Alexandra M. Joyce | Attorney | Counsel for Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel M. Silver | Attorney | Counsel for Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daralyn J. Durie | Attorney | Counsel for Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Maliheh Zare | Attorney | Counsel for Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew I. Kreeger | Attorney | Counsel for Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sumaiya Sharmeen | Attorney | Counsel for Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Umeet Sajjan | Attorney | Counsel for Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wesley WL Chen | Attorney | Counsel for Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | McCarter & English LLP | Law Firm | Representing Wuhan Healthgen Biotechnology CorporationSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jeremy A. Tigan | Attorney | Counsel for ExpressTec LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Scott R. Brown | Attorney | Counsel for ExpressTec LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Todd A. Gangel | Attorney | Counsel for ExpressTec LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing ExpressTec LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The transfer order is a threshold procedural ruling, not a merits determination. The court’s language — granting the motion to transfer ‘for the reasons stated in open court’ — suggests the analysis was rendered orally and may not be fully documented in the public written record. This phrasing is consistent with courts applying the § 1404(a) private and public interest factors, finding Delaware’s connection to the dispute insufficiently compelling. Neither party’s substantive positions on infringement or validity were evaluated.
US9951100B2, US10183984B2 & US10730926B2 — Plant-derived recombinant human serum albumin
The three asserted patents — US9951100B2, US10183984B2, and US10730926B2 — are directed to the production and use of recombinant human serum albumin (rHSA) derived from plant expression systems, most likely rice-based platforms. rHSA produced in plant hosts avoids the contamination and supply risks of plasma-derived albumin, and its applications span cell culture media, biopharmaceutical manufacturing excipients, and clinical diagnostics. The patent applications underlying these grants (filed under application numbers 14/676727, 14/996092, and 14/653258) reflect a sustained R&D investment by Healthgen in this platform.
Plant-derived rHSA sits at the intersection of agricultural biotechnology and biopharmaceutical manufacturing — a space with intensifying commercial activity as cell therapy and vaccine manufacturers seek animal-component-free growth media. The assertion of all three patents against InVitria and Ventria Bioscience, both known commercial suppliers of recombinant albumin products, suggests Healthgen views its patent estate as a meaningful competitive moat. Any claim construction or validity ruling from the District of Kansas will carry sector-wide implications for rHSA product development and supply chain decisions.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9951100B2, US10183984B2 & US10730926B2?
If your organisation develops, manufactures, or sources plant-derived recombinant albumin — including rHSA-based cell culture media, serum-free supplements, or biopharmaceutical excipients — these three patents present a non-trivial freedom-to-operate risk. The defendants in this case are established commercial suppliers, and the fact that litigation has been filed and transferred (not dismissed) means the patents remain enforceable and the plaintiff’s enforcement intent is credible.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claim scope of US9951100B2, US10183984B2, and US10730926B2, identify relevant prior art, and flag prosecution history estoppel that may limit claim breadth. For R&D teams designing around plant-expression albumin IP, Eureka can also surface adjacent white-space opportunities and monitor the Kansas docket for claim construction orders that redefine the patent boundaries.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9951100B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar patent suits involving recombinant albumin and plant-derived biologics
Explore related patent infringement cases in the recombinant protein and plant-derived biologics space litigated in US District Courts, including venue transfer precedents.
What this case signals for the recombinant protein IP landscape
A swift venue transfer in a multi-patent biotech suit highlights the growing risk of forum-shopping in plant-derived biologics IP enforcement.
Delaware is not always a safe harbour for biotech patent plaintiffs
Courts are increasingly willing to transfer biotech cases when defendants’ key witnesses, evidence, and operations are concentrated in another district. Companies filing rHSA or plant-derived biologics suits should conduct a rigorous § 1404(a) analysis before selecting Delaware as their venue of choice — a transfer can cost months and tactical leverage.
Three rHSA patents remain live and enforceable in Kansas proceedings
The transfer order carries no finding on validity or infringement. US9951100B2, US10183984B2, and US10730926B2 are all still asserted. Competitors and licensees in the plant-derived albumin and cell culture media space should track the Kansas docket for claim construction orders and any merits rulings that could directly affect FTO positions.
Wuhan v ExpressTec — key questions answered
Wuhan Healthgen and Healthgen Biotechnology filed a patent infringement suit in Delaware District Court in March 2024 against ExpressTec, InVitria, and Ventria Bioscience over three rHSA patents. The court granted a motion to transfer venue to the District of Kansas in August 2024. No merits ruling was issued.
Healthgen asserted three US patents: US9951100B2 (application 14/676727), US10183984B2 (application 14/996092), and US10730926B2 (application 14/653258). All three are directed to plant-derived recombinant human serum albumin (rHSA) products and production methods.
The Delaware District Court granted the defendants’ motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), finding the District of Kansas a more appropriate forum. The ruling was delivered in open court. The likely basis involves the defendants’ operational ties to Kansas, though the full factual record has not been published.
No. A § 1404(a) transfer is a procedural ruling on venue convenience, not a substantive determination on infringement or patent validity. US9951100B2, US10183984B2, and US10730926B2 remain enforceable, and all claims and defences survive intact in the District of Kansas.
The case involves three patents covering a plant-derived recombinant albumin platform used in cell culture and biopharmaceutical manufacturing. The defendants — InVitria and Ventria Bioscience — are known commercial suppliers in this space. Any merits ruling in Kansas could redefine competitive IP boundaries for rHSA product developers globally.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.