Returning to their language on enoxaparin, I understand it is not addressing the five fda criteria, but is your interpretation that they are not even talking about their own generic enoxaparin, rather someone else's (presumably not Amphastar's so I guess that leaves one other possibility)
First, let me be clear - I wasn't making a particularly pointed comment about their being evasive. I think that was already effectively made earlier in the thread. Only about what, IMO, the PR is really about. I.e. Teva clearly thinks that either:
a) their case against Copaxone being genericizable is stronger than their case for having t-enox approved
OR
b) their case against Copaxone being genericizable is more important to them
or both
So, all that said, in answer to your question it isn't that I think that portion of the PR is talking about "someone else's" enoxaparin, but that they are speaking generically about any (all) enoxaparin(s). Certainly you could replace all instances of 'enoxaparin' in that list with 'LMWHs' and it would still be true.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
