Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MNTA)

[investorgold2002]

settlement has to be "pro-competitive"

wheeler stopped short of saying they are in settlement talks with teva. he also said any settlement has to be "pro-competitive" so as to pass FTC approval...pro-competitive he implied would benefit the consumer(patient).
can somebody explain to me how that is possible, if a generic is not coming to market. pro-competitive settlement here seems like a oxymoron ?

Eg:
1. Settlement 1
MNTA drops suit on TEVA on lovenox. TEVA assuming it gets FDA approval agrees to launch lovenox not before 2014

2. Settlement 2
TEVA drops suit on MNTA on Copaxone.
TEVA also agrees not to launch Lovenox(assuming FDA approval) until 2014.
MNTA agrees to drop suit on TEVA on lovenox
MNTA agrees to no not launch(assuming FDA approval) Copaxone until 2014

3. Settlement 3 - Any $ exchange will not pass scrutiny of FTC..so those settlements can be ruled out i guess?

In both 1) and 2), customer is loser as 1 company would be in the market for greater period and would command it's own pricing...Copaxone's cost is 40K per year ..expensive by any standards..

Most of the para 4 settlements, i have seen are agreements to launch after a certain date...i don't know how this would benefit a consumer and how any settlement can be "pro-competitive"