Replies to post #197092 on Biotech Values

[exwannabe]

Biggest question - how can any of the companies pay even the lost revenue, much less the damages. They can't turn back the clock and collect more from the payors so the lost revenue is in the billions given past and future.

Given that Teva is off the hook, we are talking damages from the Amphastar/Watson(Activis). But Activis is plenty large enough to cough up several billion.

Damages will be tricky. If both had been found infringing, then it would obviously be huge. Still can see 10 figures with just the Amphastar infringement though.

Biomaven, you post:

If I'm reading this right the distinction the court drew is the TEVA product is made outside the US. That makes no sense at all in the big scheme of things.

Not quite correct. The Court holds that none of the generics are "made" via the patented process in the context of the US law that precludes using a US patented process to manufacture ex US, then import. The process was held as simply a QA step and as such, by past precedent, does not constitute "making" under the law.

So the Teva decision is logical. Note that Amphastar is making commercial use of the process within the US, which is infringement w/o regard to the manufacturing vs QA issue.

Agree with you that the earlier CFAC decision was very poor.

Question: Is the Teva case alive in the EU?