DewDilligence,
I at first, I was also disappointed to hear CW say the ruling by the end of the year. Then I remembered doing some research and finding out that once they reach agreement, it takes the assigned judge who writes the opinion
anywhere from 45 days for some judges, to 75 days for the other judges. I am guessing we hear by Oct. If there should be, heaven forbid, a dissenting opinion, that judge might take more or less time on their opinion.
I am wiling to wait to get a very strong opinion in our favor. It is not like it will not take several more years to get the final verdict. In the mean time the damage clock gets bigger every day when we prevail.
There should be no more doubt, by anyone now, who has read the recent brief, by Momenta, that Amphastar is using our patent and continues to use our patent. From the brief ,“ Moreover, the summary-judgement record establishes that Amphastar does in fact routinely use Momenta’s patented method as a quality control procedure to select batches of enoxaparin for commercial sale” I don’t know how it could be any more clear that they continue to use our patent. That is also what I heard their counsel say at the last hearing.
I hope Amphastar et al keep on adding new drugs. We might own all their drugs before this is all over. They are trying to scoop up injectable drugs from any overlap on Teva and Mylan should there be a deal. They have a higher margin. Great we like high margin drugs! They just bought a manufacturing facility from Merck for 34M. Great!
As for AGN they might well be exceeding any indemnity agreement as they are continuing to tell AMPH how to manufacture the drug per AMPH 10Q Them now being aware of violations of our patent might well just throw them back on the liability block for not taking corrective action after the SG opinion.
AGN is now aware of the SG's opinion on the violations. Separate intentional actions, after the indemnity agreement and the SG’s opinion, should void the indemnity agreement would be my argument. Not sure if we have are in a joint and several liability state, but if we are they will still likely be on the hook if AMPH can’t pay a judgement and they would have to pay what they can’t pay and have to go back after AMPH. Let AGN keep violating the patent for the next several years. They should not have a leg to stand on.
I agree with GrthzGD that the AMPH cc should be quite interesting provided the analysts have figured out what is going on. The potential of the AG opinion, despite AMPH saying the AG is wrong, should be a wake up call. Same with Teva even though they come in later on sales TEVA is also now on notice. If TEVA has a wake up call and tries to settle quickly AMPH and Watson AGN) are going to be sucking wind. (Expression from my days in the service in England.) TEVA’s counsel might be telling TEVA something different on exposure than AMPH counsel is telling AMPH and AGN. When I was involved in litigation, and we had a very strong case, we would go all the way no mercy. We were always re-evaluating our percent chances to win vs. loose. I am not seeing this as a settle for a low percent of royalty. I see this a major damage case if we prevail. If TEVA has a wake up call, they might well try and get out and leave AMPH and AGN to take the big bang. It would save them major legal fees for several years more of litigation. It might also save TEVA from being exposed under any joint and several liability should AMPH not be able to pay all of a judgement should joint and several liability apply. I will let the lawyers on the board comment on if JASL is applicable to the States where we are in litigation. That is a big question for us. Also, would we be entitled to attorney fees if we prevail on a product patent case? More major dollar at stake if we prevail. I am out of the loop on these last two issues.
ANALYST Question ONE, in light of the SG"s opinion, and assuming the SG is right, is not the whole value of company(AMPH), and then some, on the line for damages right now? It is obvious the AMPH shareholders have not yet awoke to the real potential and are just buying the SG is wrong from AMPH. The questions on the patent would be the most important thing in light of the potential damages should MNTA prevail. AMPH response my words “ no we will try and settle for a small royalty” Really? What makes you think so? MNTA doesn’t have that in mind!. When one thinks about it, not much on their cc will matter if they loose the patent case. MNTA has a right and obligation to us shareholders to be indignant and not do a cheap settlement in order to cut off this type of plagiarism at the patent draw! It involves all our future patents. My words, wait while I get up off the floor.
ANALYST QUESTION 2. What will you do if TEVA sees the exposure and tries to settle out quickly? More Cough, Cough and shareholders choking?
ANALYST QUESTION 3, Is MNTA right that you have used and continue to use their patent as a quality control procedure? AMPH my words yes. COUGH, COUGH shareholders.
ANALYST QUESTION 4, Should the CAFC opinion be adverse to AMPH, do you anticipate having to put up a several hundreds of millions of dollars bond for damages to MNTA and Sandoz if you don’t prevail just like you required of the bond from them? If so how much? Cough, Cough shareholders choaking? Worth asking for the response. SORRY CLICK END OF CC. I at first, I was also disappointed to hear CW say the ruling by the end of the year. Then I remembered doing some research and finding out that once they reach agreement, it takes the assigned judge who writes the opinion
anywhere from 45 days for some judges, to 75 days for the other judges. I am guessing we hear by Oct. If there should be, heaven forbid, a dissenting opinion, that judge might take more or less time on their opinion.
I am wiling to wait to get a very strong opinion in our favor. It is not like it will not take several more years to get the final verdict. In the mean time the damage clock gets bigger every day when we prevail.
There should be no more doubt, by anyone now, who has read the recent brief, by Momenta, that Amphastar is using our patent and continues to use our patent. From the brief ,“ Moreover, the summary-judgement record establishes that Amphastar does in fact routinely use Momenta’s patented method as a quality control procedure to select batches of enoxaparin for commercial sale” I don’t know how it could be any more clear that they continue to use our patent. That is also what I heard their counsel say at the last hearing.
I hope Amphastar et al keep on adding new drugs. We might own all their drugs before this is all over. They are trying to scoop up injectable drugs from any overlap on Teva and Mylan should there be a deal. They have a higher margin. Great we like high margin drugs! They just bought a manufacturing facility from Merck for 34M. Great!
As for AGN they might well be exceeding any indemnity agreement as they are continuing to tell AMPH how to manufacture the drug per AMPH 10Q Them now being aware of violations of our patent might well just throw them back on the liability block for not taking corrective action after the SG opinion.
AGN is now aware of the SG's opinion on the violations. Separate intentional actions, after the indemnity agreement and the SG’s opinion, should void the indemnity agreement would be my argument. Not sure if we have are in a joint and several liability state, but if we are they will still likely be on the hook if AMPH can’t pay a judgement and they would have to pay what they can’t pay and have to go back after AMPH. Let AGN keep violating the patent for the next several years. They should not have a leg to stand on.
I will let all add their own questions.
If I owned AMPH stock I sure would want some outside thinking if the SG is wrong or not.
Several other things also come to mind.
We were almost into the black this quarter. Next quarter, if we are in the black, it should make for a pop.
There was a much lower wholesale stocking than I was thinking with an estimate of 4/6 weeks on the initial stocking. I hope the next round is a larger stocking as scripts continue to climb.
We will not have the 9M in pre launch in legal fees expense next quarter.
We have 7 other potential drugs in early stages and will be cranking out two new drugs per year. If we get enough profit coming in, we might some day get that up to one drug per quarter.
We have no debt, a big cash reserve for expansion, drugs already progressing towards approval, the potential of very large payments for Ivig etc., (that in my opinion could be a major blockbuster if they can get 56 drugs uses approved at one time.) That would also would be the only drugs that
don”t need human blood for the drug products. The way i read it there pre grant patent application says they think they have done that for this class of drugs.
Few biotech companies are in our position at this low a price per share.
Should any part of this post be in error, the rest stands :)
Boing X 2
