Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MNTA)

[mouton29]

I agree with you. Had the brief been wishy-washy, you might wonder, but it is pretty forceful on the pro-Momenta side. I suppose there could be two pro-Amphastar judges and one on the fence or pro-Momenta, and the latter wanted to request the SG brief and the other two felt they could hardly refuse that. But that's not the impression one gets from the oral argument.

Back to Biopearl's question, the brief makes it clear that it assumes infringement occurred but expresses no view on whether it in fact occurred:

Here, defendants routinely use a patented quality-control testing process owned by their competitor, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and licensed to Sandoz Inc. (collectively, Momenta) to select appropriate batches of enoxaparin for commercial sale.5 Momenta I, 686 F.3d at 1351.


5 For purposes of this brief, the government accepts as true the well-pleaded factual allegations in Momenta’s complaint. We express no view on whether defendants’ conduct in fact constitutes infringement.