Replies to post #14061 on Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MNTA)

[mouton29]

I agree with you. Had the brief been wishy-washy, you might wonder, but it is pretty forceful on the pro-Momenta side. I suppose there could be two pro-Amphastar judges and one on the fence or pro-Momenta, and the latter wanted to request the SG brief and the other two felt they could hardly refuse that. But that's not the impression one gets from the oral argument.

Back to Biopearl's question, the brief makes it clear that it assumes infringement occurred but expresses no view on whether it in fact occurred:

Here, defendants routinely use a patented quality-control testing process owned by their competitor, Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., and licensed to Sandoz Inc. (collectively, Momenta) to select appropriate batches of enoxaparin for commercial sale.5 Momenta I, 686 F.3d at 1351.


5 For purposes of this brief, the government accepts as true the well-pleaded factual allegations in Momenta’s complaint. We express no view on whether defendants’ conduct in fact constitutes infringement.

[biopearl]

Dew, the market place has changed alright! Is there a scenario where if MNTA wins the patent case finally in DC that the damages (ok, I am getting ahead of things a little) could reflect not only lost revenues based on the current market but the market before Ampha entry (plus a multiple for damages?). I remember the CEO saying a long time ago that assessment of damages would be fairly simple arithmetic based on lost revenue plus damages (this was before the CAFC fiasco). If so, MNTA could eventually own Amphastar. Is it more likely after all this that MNTA will (real world) just accept a royalty and be content with the precedent being set to protect them going forward or is there a real chance the damages could be based on pre infringement pricing? Thanks bp

[tony111]

With the SG opinion in hand when can we expect a decision? Within in a month? TIA for the answer.

[DFRAI]

Why not an injuction against competitor by the courts pending resolution/settlement? Should this not be MNTA's call if they prevail...why shouldn't they ask the courts for this outcome?

Are there so many other competing products that it makes more sense to request larger damages to be awarded etc

[tony111]

If the case got sent down to district court, doesn't it mean momenta essentially won the case as AMPH and TEVA both claimed they indeed used the patent. I just listened to the May oral argument both TEVA and AMPH said they used the patent process when there are other methods available to sort out the product. How can you argue at the court that you did not use the patent when you previously claimed that you did to obtain FDA approval?

[GrthzGd]

Thankfully, Judge Gorton is still on the bench and presumably nothing has occurred to alter his initial impression of the matter that he formed nearly four years ago. http://www.mad.uscourts.gov/boston/gorton.htm

[DewDiligence]

A contrary opinion on the SG opinion:

@DewDiligence @rajramaswamy roy, normally would love 2, but am advising 4 this project & need 2 shut up for a few weeks as part of deal :(

— Dr. Zoidberg 🇺🇦 (@psuvafan007) July 27, 2015

[scan up]

The poster is anonymous and he won’t show his cards, but I’m nevertheless curious to know what he thinks he sees in the SG opinion that’s bearish for MNTA.

[DewDiligence]

The potential magnitude of the Lovenox patent case is starting to be absorbed by the market, IMO. (This matter was well below Wall Street’s radar screen until yesterday’s CC.)

p.s. AMPH’s 2Q15 CC is one week from today; should be a good listen.