Take it for what it is worth (as it is free), but Amph has as good as admitted to using MNTA's IP on at least one patent. They are claiming safe harbor and legal technicalities to get around this use, and if I read correctly (admittedly I sped through it) they are claiming that each of their production batches using MNTA IP are utilizing this IP, but only for FDA approval, even if the batches are then subsequently utilized for production and distribution.
Is that what others are interpreting?
If so, MNTA has an excellent change of getting the PI as Ampha's justifications and defenses are legal niceties that will require a full trial, and the trial could go either way, and it is speculative, at best, with both sides having their own good faith arguments as to how it will come out. But there is one undisputed thing: MNTA's IP is being utilized by Amphastar, and utilized in a manner that is bringing product to market in the U.S.
I argued something very similar yesterday (on a different topic of law, but with a similar one undisputed thing, and parties can disagree on the merits around the definition, but that one undisputed thing existed, and it proved my case) and in my mind, since Ampha admits using the IP, MNTA has demonstrated they are "likely" to prevail unless Ampha's use of this IP is transparently within a safe harbor or other technicality, and there is no reasonable dispute on this.
The only reason I am even holding through this period is because of copaxone, always there to prop us back up, but reasoning through this, that seems the most likely outcome to me on the issue of likely to prevail. IP being utilized, good faith argument on both sides as to technicalities or no technicalities, MNTA is likely to prevail.
Tinker
