Shortly thereafter, on January 14, 2022, the District Court for the Northern District of California denied a motion to dismiss filed by Panuwat. The Court stated that the core issue of the motion concerned whether Panuwat breached a duty to Medivation by purportedly using the information about Company A's interest in acquiring Medivation to buy Incyte stock options. Panuwat claimed that Medivation's insider trading policy did not prohibit him from trading Incyte securities. The Court disagreed. Ultimately, the Court found that Panuwat had a duty to Medivation stemming from (1) the plain language of Medivation's insider trading policy, (2) a confidentiality agreement that he signed, and (3) principles of agency law. On March 25, 2024, the Court again denied Panuwat's motion for summary judgment on similar grounds.