Here is the gist part of a post on MNTA that I did on the Motley Fool New Paradigm site that I was requested to post here, for which I am happy to oblige:
And yes, the change of language {talking about Teva's change of language in its public statments} may all be due to the litigation posture. Which brings up a conjecture: if Teva has the real goods, and they acquired the real goods without trampling over MNTA IP, then why would Teva be so concerned about such protocols in relation to the litigation? TEVA should have nothing to fear in litigation, if they plan on selling the product in the U.S. anyways, if they have not trampled on MNTA IP. The only reason Teva would be acting this way in regard to the litigation (that I can think of at present) is if either (1) they don't have the goods, or (2) they only have the goods after violating MNTA IP and they know it.
I mean, really. Can anyone think of any other reason for this? And in particular with how carefully Teva drafted their P.R. in early December in regard to the litigation and how they very carefully specified the following: "Teva's version of generic Lovenox, which is manufactured and tested outside of the U.S." That defense disappears as soon as Teva attempts to market in the U.S. (which is the entire basis for the ANDA to begin with). So that is not much of a defense, as it shortly becomes irrelevant upon FDA approval, that is, unless, Teva either does not expect approval, or Teva has indeed trampled MNTA IP.
Tinker
