Insmed Inc (INSM)

[parentsgratae]

north40000 - question - I know that patent law is unique but in this case, does a legal presumption work in INSM's favor?
[For the layman here - a legal presumption is a truth that the law assumes ex. "a properly posted letter reached its intended destination" Legal presumtions works to shift the burden of proof to the person who did not receive the letter to offer evidence that the letter did not reach its destination]
Now in this case the US Patent Office issued the LATER patents upon which Iplex could be developed and produced. Isn't there a presumption that the US Patent Office WOULD NOT have issued the patents that would infringe upon prior patents given to DNA, one as I recall many years before. The same with Iplex - it was given orphan status as a different drug than Increlex so the presumption would be IPlex is not a generic but something different. Consequently, INSM should be able to rely upon the patents issues to it in developing and manufacturing Iplex, a unique drug.
Now we know as Plaintiffs, DNA and TRCA, carry the burden of proof anyway, but would the legal presumptions and reasonable reliance factors strengthen INSM's defenses? I know that abharp ...believe it does not because both parties can plead "legal presumption" but in my view, the legal presumption would only apply to the patents issued later. Thanks