Biotech Values

[zipjet]

>>(In the CAFC’s 2-1 ruling against MNTA in Jan 2012 on the preliminary injunction, the one judge siding with MNTA [who is now retired] said in his dissent essentially the same thing that the US SG is now saying in its amicus brief.)

To the extent that one of the judges made the same argument, the proposition was raised to the other judges. Not sure that the SG making the same points would have had a greater impact. That, in my experience, would turn on internal court politics which often has nothing to do with what we generally call politics.

Still the safe-harbor turned into a free license to use others patented property. Not a good policy IMO.