My impression was the same as yours 10, they don't know. They don't think it is necessarily impossible. The lawsuit indicates that they think, if it is possible, it is because they utilized MNTA IP to do so. Which leaves the lawsuit shield.
Which is a good reason to raise money because just because someone is violating your IP it does not matter until the court says they are and makes them pay damages. As an example, the DRAM industry stole RMBS's IP for nearly a decade and then only paid a relative pittance to what was actually taken. Cost RMBS $10s of millions to fight.
This IP case will be more limited and simpler, but litigation remains endlessly uncertain until it is finalized. Which could keep the lovenox issue up in the air for years. Meaning MNTA may be denied these revenues for years, until they prevail in court, including appeals (assuming Teva posts what would probably be an enormous bond to secure the award first as would be required).
Now if MNTA can get the FDA to approve copaxone without clinical trials, then that issue may become irrelevant. At least for awhile, pending the current copaxone litigation, if they can ever get their Markman ruling and get the case going.
Tinker
P.S. if they had to conduct clinical trials, that would be something like 2 years or so I would estimate. I doubt very much the FDA is going to make MNTA conduct clinical trials, but that would largely make moot the on-going litigation.
In any event, I am looking for copaxone approval out of the blue, like lovenox approval was, as the next big catalyst here. Perhaps a partnership, perhaps a favorable Markman ruling as well.
Okay, most of that was not covered in the presentation, but you have to look at it holistically.
