News Focus
News Focus
Post# of 257262
Next 10
Followers 36
Posts 2637
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 10/06/2003

Re: rkrw post# 109882

Friday, 12/03/2010 10:11:59 AM

Friday, December 03, 2010 10:11:59 AM

Post# of 257262
You asked a narrow question to which there is plausible (albeit unlikely) cause(s) of action.

Now you assert that MNTA/Sandoz (MS) "should" have no idea whether TEVA did infringe.

Maybe - maybe not.

It is plausible that accomplishing the task (characterization, producing, proving "sameness) without the use of the patented processes is so difficult or costly that MS can infer infringement. That is sufficient for suit. More will be required to win. To win there will need to be proof of direct infringement or under the doctrine of equivalents*.

Discovery will be the means of obtaining the proof - if such exists.

ij


* http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doctrine_of_equivalents

There are times when rules and precedents cannot be broken; others when they cannot be adhered to with safety. (Thomas Joplin)

Discover What Traders Are Watching

Explore small cap ideas before they hit the headlines.

Join Today