Monday, July 21, 2014 1:33:32 PM
<<Just because a procedure for manufacture is listed in the USP, is its use "required" for approval? If so this would not comport with Momenta using an entirely different test (2D NMR) for their approval. So do you see this finding by the DC as strong?>>
I quoted from the CAFC, so I'm not sure this was a "finding by the DC." But it certainly seems wrong -- either it is wrong or Momenta not properly manufacturing product. But the error is irrelevant to the CAFC conclusion, they specifically say that even if the Momenta test is not the only one required, the use of the Momenta test is still protected by the safe harbor. Now that's obviously a broader holding, so I suppose it increases the probability of Supreme Court review.
You are correct that the CAFC ruling was "only" on the injunction, but of course what is now being appealed is the summary judgment by the DC on the merits. So if the CAFC affirms that, it's all over, unless the Supreme's agree to review.
VHAI - Vocodia Partners with Leading Political Super PACs to Revolutionize Fundraising Efforts • VHAI • Sep 19, 2024 11:48 AM
Dear Cashmere Group Holding Co. AKA Swifty Global Signs Binding Letter of Intent to be Acquired by Signing Day Sports • DRCR • Sep 19, 2024 10:26 AM
HealthLynked Launches Virtual Urgent Care Through Partnership with Lyric Health. • HLYK • Sep 19, 2024 8:00 AM
Element79 Gold Corp. Appoints Kevin Arias as Advisor to the Board of Directors, Strengthening Strategic Leadership • ELMGF • Sep 18, 2024 10:29 AM
Mawson Finland Limited Further Expands the Known Mineralized Zones at Rajapalot: Palokas step-out drills 7 metres @ 9.1 g/t gold & 706 ppm cobalt • MFL • Sep 17, 2024 9:02 AM
PickleJar Announces Integration With OptCulture to Deliver Holistic Fan Experiences at Venue Point of Sale • PKLE • Sep 17, 2024 8:00 AM