News Focus
News Focus
Post# of 257253
Next 10
Followers 91
Posts 20561
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 09/06/2006

Re: mouton29 post# 121883

Saturday, 06/18/2011 6:02:23 PM

Saturday, June 18, 2011 6:02:23 PM

Post# of 257253
Mouton, could you clarify a few points?

I assumed that the "but for" rule was that the patent MIGHT not have been approved "but for" the issue at hand. Is it "might" or "would"?

Even w/o that though, if the facts are that TEVA told the PTO "this (MW change) is better" while telling the FDA "this is the same", then I would consider that egregious conduct.

Trade Smarter with Thousands

Leverage decades of market experience shared openly.

Join Now