Biotech Values

[Rocky3]

Most importantly (from MNTA board):

"Under the correct interpretation of 35 U.S.C § 271(e)(1), Momenta’s admission that Amphastar’s testing is carried out to “satisfy the FDA’s requirements,” Appellee’s Brief at 40-41, makes it unlikely that Momenta will succeed on the merits of its infringement claim."
"The district court’s findings with respect to the irreparable harm, balance of the hardships, and public interest factors were all, to some extent, predicated on its erroneous conclusion that Momenta’s patent was likely infringed by Amphastar’s product.
"Because Momenta has not established a likelihood of success on its claim of infringement, the preliminary injunction must be vacated. On remand, the district court may want to consider whether Momenta’s admission that Amphastar’s use of the patented invention is to “satisfy the FDA’s requirements” makes this case amenable to summary judgment of non-infringement in favor of Amphastar."