Replies to post #17417 on Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MNTA)

[jbog]

bio,

I'm not aware of any decision, but it is somewhat touched in this weeks trial.

I would think a trip to the inter partes review (IPR) would happen. I've never put much faith in Momenta's case because I don't think the patent itself would stand up.

I've been wrong before.

[mouton29]

What I think you are recalling is that in granting the injunction years ago, Judge Gorton decided that Momenta was reasonably likely to prevail on the question of whether the patent was infringed. But I really don't think that is in any way binding or even particularly relevant at this point.

Indeed, in this decision (I linked to it a while ago) https://www.dropbox.com/s/myt5h9oj0fjgzt5/Summary%20Judgment%20motions%20denied%202017-1.pdf?dl=0 Judge Gorton considered whether to grant AMPHASTAR summary judgement on patent invalidity or noninfringement. He denied that motion, just as he denied Momenta's motion for summary judgement on the equitable defense argument. But he denied Amphastar's motion by assuming the disputed facts in Momenta's favor, as one does in deciding a summary judgement motion (the idea being you grant summary judgement only if there are no material issues of fact for the jury to decide). But in so deciding he made it clear this is still open. Although I have the sense he thinks Momenta has a good case, this is all still up in the air.