Dew, I did. MNTA/Sandoz attorney seemed more seasoned, relaxed and accessible and argued the case in a logical way that did not get lost in legalese. The TEVA attorney was more tightly wound, obviously very intelligent. I think the definition of winning is worth discussing since really a major delay is still a win of sorts for TEVA since the '808 expires next Sept anyway and if TEVA succeeds in having the case remanded to the Court of Appeals for "clear error" the time element even if MNTA wins is all TEVA seems interested in. My sense was that the "not worth the candle" argument could carry the day and that contrary to what usually happens, there is some reasonable chance this particular case might be upheld and continued de novo evaluation by the Appeals court affirmed. If the SC court does do this I hope they do it soon. Except for Justice Breyer the other justices that spoke and interrogated the attorneys seemed to not be ready to show any bias. I thought Justices Alito, Sotomeyer and Ginsberg seemed quite willing to evaluate the arguments on both sides with (maybe my biased ear) hearing a tilt toward MNTA. Justice Thomas if he was there was quiet. I am not an attorney but found the proceedings quite fascinating and felt at least acquainted with the issues at hand re stare decesis, denovo evaluation, clear error determinations, hopeless insolubility Markman issues etc. thanks to previous discussions on this board. What was your take? bp
