InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 21
Posts 980
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/20/2019

Re: None

Monday, 10/18/2021 3:24:56 PM

Monday, October 18, 2021 3:24:56 PM

Post# of 428011
Interesting tidbit from the judge: page 77


THE COURT: But, you know, I mean part of the reason -- well, you know, it's a strange situation, and again, one that I don't really think Congress had intended or, you know, the law intended when it was passed, that the way the system is set up, you're going to have doctors prescribing the generic for these methods. And you know, I just listened for a long time on the generic's not responsible, and you're saying you're not responsible, and so I think, in fact, there is going to be, you know, a significant amount of use of the generic drug to perform the patented method. And essentially everyone is saying nobody's responsible. Well, that seems to me -- maybe that's the way it is, but it seems to me to be not what was intended. I mean, the point of the law was intended to allow them to exercise, including, you know, not in returns on their branded drug for their -- you know, for their -- for the CV use.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent AMRN News