Per the latest Credit Suisse write up, they estimate Watson's retail sales of Enox adding about a dime per year in earnings. Now using a little commonsense, would you believe WPI would risk their whole enterprise to earn a silly 5 cents (prior to trial).
That is perfectly logical. I would certainly hope so. I do not like "bet the company" decisions. And WPI looks to be making one.
They know something we don't.
I'm sure they do. But it did not stop the trial judge from issuing the injunction. After that, how can they be sure? How can they rely on that "something" which they know?
But in my world view, the outcome of litigation which regularly depends on the interplay of multiple decision makers (judge, jury, CoA panel, CoA enbanc, etc.) makes predicting the outcome difficult.
We don't have to look any further than the CoA staying the injunction - and unless I have missed something - without so much as a hint of the basis.
BTW - I am not wildly optimistic. I will take money from on-going revenue any day over the prospect of a distant court win. And for now we are back to betting on court outcomes.
ij
It is astonishing what foolish things one can temporarily believe if one thinks too long alone ... where it is often impossible to bring one's ideas to a conclusive test either formal or experimental. J.M. Keynes