Biotech Values

[oc631]

Think about the public policy implications of that rule of law. It would mean that the use of the IP and manufacturing needs to be done outside the US in order to avoid the patents granted in the US.

NVS/Sandoz's "European Strategy" for FOB could be based on this loophole.

If Teva's defense of T-Enox was to prevail after approval, based on characterization work being done outside the U.S., it would be a net positive for Sandoz's strategy going forward. We already know Sandoz's share of profits from M-Enox will only be slightly impacted as MNTA loses it's profit sharing status and bears the brunt of T-Enox approval.

Will the legal team defending MNTA's IP against Teva be equally represented by both MNTA and Sandoz? It may be in MNTA's best interest if this were not the case. I see a potential conflict of interest between co-defendants.