thanks genisi sounds like you have a source that was at the hearing - any other color you can provide? that the patents were discussed is vague - obviously if the court includes these patents in the case then it is a win for teva (expiration date on those patents is well after 2014). on the other hand they may have been discussed to support or refute an indefiniteness argument in an earlier patent (for instance, one bone of contention in the 161 patent was that sandoz arugues the conditions for size exclusion chromatography were not specified. this was refuted by teva's expert that one skilled in the art would not have to know the precise conditions. if those conditions are now elaborated in subsequent patents, and/or information that SEC cannot accurately measure molecular weight and one needs other methodology then it would seem to me that the indefiniteness argument surrounding use of SEC in the 161 patent becomes more relevant)
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
