I googled each of those instances to see if the PI was unheld. Looks like they all (exclude aL) were upheld and the blocked drugs were kept off the market for years and in some cases until expiration of the patent.
Unless the CAFC lifts the stay (which seems unlikely since I haven't yet found any instances of that in patent litigation) this will be a precedent. Given that the damages are not different here than in other instances I'd guess that it is confusion (by the judges) over a patent on a generic - e.g. safe harbor (as the judge himself said - and the CAFC has ruled earlier - it doesn't apply) or concept of momenta patents blocking all gL competition (it doesn't).
PS Anyone found any examples of monetary damages awarded (or settlement) from an 'at risk' generic launch? It would interesting to see if it accounts for not only the loss incurred during marketing, but the more permanent erosion in price. And whether the damages (or settlement) were actually treble.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
