Friday, July 18, 2014 4:29:44 PM
<<Unless I am missing something, though, in the end, the court concludes that the patented test is in fact required because it is in the USP (emphasis added): >> My question is this:
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?
As I read through the brief I am reminded that the ruling was only on an injunction, and that Ampahstar withheld data from the court and was sanctioned.
So unlike the copaxone case where the CAFC ruling will still be in force at the time of FDA approval (whenever that is...) the lovonox case is different in that only the injunction is in force but the case not as yet determined. Is this correct and if so in this case is there a legitimate chance for treble damages in favor of Momenta since it may be found that Momenta's patent was indeed violated? Thanks and regards, bp
NanoViricides Reports that the Phase I NV-387 Clinical Trial is Completed Successfully and Data Lock is Expected Soon • NNVC • May 2, 2024 10:07 AM
ILUS Files Form 10-K and Provides Shareholder Update • ILUS • May 2, 2024 8:52 AM
Avant Technologies Names New CEO Following Acquisition of Healthcare Technology and Data Integration Firm • AVAI • May 2, 2024 8:00 AM
Bantec Engaged in a Letter of Intent to Acquire a Small New Jersey Based Manufacturing Company • BANT • May 1, 2024 10:00 AM
Cannabix Technologies to Deliver Breath Logix Alcohol Screening Device to Australia • BLO • Apr 30, 2024 8:53 AM
Hydromer, Inc. Reports Preliminary Unaudited Financial Results for First Quarter 2024 • HYDI • Apr 29, 2024 9:10 AM