…contrary to their position here that the “court of appeals definitively determined the scope of Section 271(e)(1),” Pet. 32, petitioners have told the district court that they “will oppose” respondents’ “motion for summary judgment based solely upon the [safe harbor]…
I don’t see what grounds NVS/MNTA could have for opposing the motion for summary judgment in the District Court.
“The efficient-market hypothesis may be the foremost piece of B.S. ever promulgated in any area of human knowledge!”