Inovio Pharmaceuticals Faces Coordinated Securities Suits Over CELLECTRA Manufacturing and INO‑3107 Timelines

Legal notices multiply around Inovio's regulatory pathway

Inovio Pharmaceuticals is facing a coordinated wave of securities litigation tied to allegations that the company misled investors about manufacturing problems with its CELLECTRA delivery device and the regulatory prospects for its lead candidate, INO‑3107. Over the past 72 hours multiple plaintiff firms — including Pomerantz LLP, Gross Law Firm, the Schall Law Firm and DJS Law Group — announce complaints or solicitations relating to purchases of Inovio securities between Oct. 10, 2023 and Dec. 26, 2025 and press claims that public statements about device manufacturing, a planned biologics license application (BLA) filing and eligibility for accelerated approval or priority review are false or misleading.

The principal allegation centers on CELLECTRA manufacturing deficiencies that plaintiffs say make it unlikely Inovio can meet a promised rolling BLA submission for INO‑3107 in the second half of 2024, and that the company lacks sufficient evidence to justify seeking FDA accelerated approval or priority review. Complaints describe Inovio’s DNA medicines as comprised of plasmid DNA and the proprietary CELLECTRA investigational device, and assert the company overstated INO‑3107’s regulatory and commercial prospects by presenting optimistic timelines and regulatory positioning without adequate support. Pomerantz files a complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania (docket no. 26‑cv‑00803), while other firms issue notice letters urging potential class members to register.

The litigation is brought under Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act and SEC Rule 10b‑5, with plaintiffs seeking damages and remedies tied to the alleged misrepresentations. While the class is not yet certified, the filings and notices are likely to compel Inovio to respond formally and could require the company to address disclosure practices, manufacturing controls for CELLECTRA and clarity on the INO‑3107 regulatory timeline. The suits focus on the accuracy of prior public statements rather than clinical efficacy, and they frame alleged operational and regulatory shortfalls as the central dispute.

Law firms expand outreach; participation optional

The notifying firms provide registration portals and contact channels for investors and stress that lead plaintiff appointment is optional to participate in any recovery. Some firms say registered shareholders receive portfolio monitoring updates during the case lifecycle and offer consultations at no cost.

Deadlines and procedural notes

Potential class members have an April 7, 2026 deadline to seek lead‑plaintiff status or to register with the various firms; complaints and notices caution that the class remains uncertified and that acting promptly preserves procedural rights while the litigation moves forward.