Replies to post #14059 on Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MNTA)

[mouton29]

"defendants" -- as flo notes, the brief repeatedly uses the plural. Many times the plural possessive, so it's not an accident, e.g., in this heading

Section 271(e)(1) Does Not Protect Defendants’ Commercial Use Of
Momenta’s Patented Invention Because That Use Is Not Reasonably
Related To The Development And Submission Of Information To FDA

The brief never mentions TEVA or Amphastar by name. In one place however, it cites from the Amphastar oral argument, which would be strange, indeed, if this were not intended for the Amphastar litigation as well:

Similarly, defendants have argued that their interpretation of section 271(e)(1) would affect only those patented methods, like Momenta’s process of analyzing
enoxaparin, designed to generate information. See Oral Argument at 54:35-55:39 (counsel for Amphastar).

As to Biopearl's concern that Amphastar denies using the patent, I am virtually certain that TEVA makes the same claim. The litigation at hand is to decide whether the court even needs to reach that factual question; if the safe harbor were to protect the conduct if it occurred, then Momenta would lose on summary judgment.