Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MNTA)

[iwfal]

"as a 10 year old"

Not really kidding. The central basis of their ruling is a reading of the law that a smart 10 year old make and they are very clear about this (see below quote) - with fairly convoluted attempts to justify it and ignoring the sweeping breadth of their ruling and the resulting clash with previous decision etc. The introductory summation of their argument is:

“[All statutory construction cases . . . begin with the language of the statute.” Barnhart v. Sigmon Coal Co., 534 U.S. 438, 450 (2002). The “first step in interpreting a statute is to determine whether the language at issue has a plain and unambiguous meaning with regard to the particular dispute in the case.” Robinson v. Shell Oil Co., 519 U.S. 337, 340 (1997). If the language of the statute is unambiguous, there is no second step: “Our inquiry must cease if the statutory language is unambiguous and ‘the statutory scheme is coherent and consistent.’” Id. (quot- ing United States v. Ron Pair Enters., Inc., 489 U.S. 235, 240 (1989)). Whether the text of a statute is plain or ambiguous “is determined by reference to the language itself, the specific context in which the language is used, and the broader context of the statute as a whole.” Id. at 341.