The CTM Biomedical lawsuit ended in a March 2026 settlement after a federal jury in California awarded Skye Orthobiologics and Human Regenerative Technologies more than $62 million against former executive Bryan Banman and his CTM companies in 2023 for breaching his contracts and fiduciary duties by launching a competing tissue-products business while still employed at Skye.
What Banman Was Accused of Doing
Bryan Banman was Skye Orthobiologics’ Senior Vice President of Business Development. He had signed a 2014 consulting contract with HRT containing confidentiality obligations, and when he was promoted in April 2018 he signed a Skye employment agreement requiring the company to be his “sole job and focus,” along with a separate confidentiality agreement with non-solicitation and non-compete covenants.1CaseMine. Skye Orthobiologics v CTM Biomedical
According to the complaint, Banman formed CTM Biomedical in June 2018 while still working at Skye. The plaintiffs alleged the “CTM” name came from “connective tissue matrix,” a phrase Skye’s sales team used exclusively for HRT’s products, and that Banman leaned on that association to trade on Skye’s goodwill in the market.2Proskauer Rose LLP. CA Federal Court Awards Biomedical Companies $62M Following Jury Trial
Two pieces of HRT know-how came up over and over at trial: a formula for HRT’s flowable product using 75 milligrams of tissue per 1 milliliter of saline (the “golden ratio”), and a technique for preserving the stromal layer on HRT’s chorion membrane product to yield thicker, more durable membranes. Trial testimony showed that Banman directed CTM’s contract manufacturer, Precision Allograft Solutions (also known as Alamo Biologics), to use both.1CaseMine. Skye Orthobiologics v CTM Biomedical
The Claims Skye and HRT Filed
Skye and HRT filed suit on April 14, 2020, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California, case number 2:20-cv-03444, before Judge Maame Ewusi-Mensah Frimpong. The complaint alleged trade secret misappropriation under the Defend Trade Secrets Act, breach of Banman’s contracts with HRT and Skye, breach of fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty, interference with contracts and prospective economic advantage, and RICO violations.3CourtListener. Skye Orthobiologics v CTM Biomedical – Docket
Before trial, Judge Frimpong dismissed the trade secret misappropriation claim on summary judgment, ruling that HRT had not described its trade secrets with sufficient specificity. She did allow the jury to hear evidence about Banman’s use of HRT’s manufacturing processes in support of the breach-of-contract and fiduciary-duty claims.2Proskauer Rose LLP. CA Federal Court Awards Biomedical Companies $62M Following Jury Trial
The Jury Verdict and $62 Million Judgment
After a six-day trial that began August 21, 2023, the jury returned its verdict on August 29. On the claims against Banman and the CTM entities, the jury found liability for breach of the HRT consulting contract, breach of the Skye employment agreement, breach of the Skye confidentiality agreement, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the duty of loyalty. It rejected the trade secret misappropriation and RICO claims against every defendant.4Blank Rome LLP. Blank Rome Secures Defense Victory in Trade Secrets and RICO Jury Trial
On November 1, 2023, the court entered judgment against Banman and the CTM entities totaling $62,054,745:2Proskauer Rose LLP. CA Federal Court Awards Biomedical Companies $62M Following Jury Trial
- $29,195,796 in lost profits to Skye
- $25,560,000 in punitive damages to Skye for breach of fiduciary duty and duty of loyalty
- $7,298,949 in lost profits to HRT
What the Judge Changed After Trial
Banman filed post-trial motions, and on April 17, 2024, Judge Frimpong granted one in part. She threw out the jury’s finding that Banman breached the Skye Employee Confidentiality Agreement, ruling that the agreement excluded information Banman already possessed when he signed it in April 2018, and the manufacturing processes at issue predated that signing. The findings of liability for breach of the Skye employment agreement, breach of the HRT consulting contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and breach of the duty of loyalty were left intact.1CaseMine. Skye Orthobiologics v CTM Biomedical
The judge also flagged concern that the evidence did not support the $25.5 million punitive damages figure.5Law360. Judge Mulls Axing Biomedical Cos $25M Punitive Damages In January 2025, she ordered a new trial limited to the amount of punitive damages Banman owed.6Law360. Biotech Trade Secrets Case Gets New Punitive Damages Trial
How the Case Ended
The new punitive damages trial never happened. The parties reached a settlement, and on March 11, 2026, they informed Judge Frimpong that the case had been resolved.7Law360. Biomedical Co Settles Trade Secrets Case Against Ex-Worker The case was formally terminated on April 16, 2026.8CourtListener. Skye Orthobiologics v CTM Biomedical – Parties The terms have not been made public.
The Separate Case Against CTM’s Manufacturer
HRT also pursued CTM’s contract manufacturer in a separate lawsuit in the Western District of Texas, alleging that Precision Allograft Solutions, Alamo Biologics, and parent Dorotea Holding Co. used the “golden ratio” and membrane-thickness processes to make competing products for CTM, and continued doing so after a December 2023 cease-and-desist letter.9San Antonio Express-News. Alamo Biologics Lawsuit and Bankruptcy Judge Jason Pulliam granted HRT a preliminary injunction in August 2024 barring Alamo from making or delivering products using the disputed processes.10DLA Piper. WD Tex Court Enjoins Human Tissue Engineering Company Over Trade Secrets That case produced an agreed judgment of nearly $3.5 million against Alamo, but on June 3, 2026, Alamo Biologics filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy, triggering an automatic stay on collection.