Integrated Genomics, Inc. v. Gerngross, 636 F.3d 853

IG licensed Pichia data to Gerngross in 2002; Gerngross did not disclose GlycoFi commercial venture.
IG charged academic rate ($5,000) and provided standard academic license terms limiting publication.
GlycoFi progressed to a funded venture; IG later delivered updated Pichia data without apparent inquiry.
Merck acquired GlycoFi in 2006, acquiring GlycoFi assets including licensed data; IG sued Gerngross for fraud and contract breaches.
District court granted Gerngross summary judgment on contract; trial found no clear and convincing fraud; Seventh Circuit affirmed.
IG appealed on contract (publication) and fraud (status misrepresentation).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Publication scope of the 10kb restriction	IG argues publication includes internal disclosures to GlycoFi/Merck	Gerngross argues publication means public disclosure only	Publication means public disclosure; no breach
Fraud—misrepresentation of academic status	Gerngross concealed GlycoFi affiliation to obtain a lower price	No clear and convincing proof of material misrepresentation	Fraud not proven by clear and convincing evidence
Materiality and price impact of the undisclosed use	Undisclosed commercial use would have raised price	Evidence supports both higher and not necessarily higher price; district court credibility matters	Record supports district court’s finding insufficient proof that price would have been higher

Valley Forge Ins. Co. v. Swiderski Elecs., Inc., 223 Ill.2d 352 (Ill. 2006) (publication includes communication to the public; not merely private disclosure)
Auto-Owners Ins. Co. v. Websolv Computing, Inc., 580 F.3d 543 (7th Cir. 2009) (interpretation of publication in privacy-context insurance cases; not all private communications constitute publication)
Kim v. Carter's Inc., 598 F.3d 362 (7th Cir. 2010) (contract interpretation; plain meaning in context)