InvestorsHub Logo
Boards
News
Market Data
Markets
Discover
Discover
Subscribe Login/Register
S&P 500
5,487.03
(
0.25%
)
US TECH 100
19,432.00
(
0.15%
)
Dow Jones
38,834.86
(
0.15%
)
Brent Oil
84.79
(
1.05%
)
Bitcoin
65,129.97
(
-2.04%
)
Post# of 252252
Next 10
Reply Private New
Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (1) Keep Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (1) Next 10 Prev Next

genisi

Send PM Follow Ignore
Followers 29
Posts 5148
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 05/24/2006

genisi

Re: biomaven0 post# 128022

Sunday, 10/09/2011 5:10:24 AM

Sunday, October 09, 2011 5:10:24 AM

Post# of 252252
I certainly agree with your view that exaggerating Section 271(e)(1) beyond the intent of the law would make the value of patents like Momenta's worth a lot less (using iwfal's words #msg-67816773). Still, from previous cases where utilizing patented techniques was allowed so long as it was related to gaining data for FDA approval for an ANDA, seems to me it is within the scope of Section 271(e)(1). Btw, Momenta will probably use the Bolar Provision in the Copaxone case (#msg-59195596).



Public Reply Private Reply New Post
Keep Last Read
Replies (1) Keep Last Read Next 10 Report Keyboard Shortcuts
Replies (1) Next 10 Prev Next

Join the InvestorsHub Community

Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.

Sign Up