sceptic,
I presume you meant "I don't think that the judge will allow injunction".
Again, I agree and your view is totally rational - future uses of iPlex are potentially profound for several different "untreated" conditions - but can the judge justify to the appeals court that she looked that far into the future when FDA approvals cannot be guaranteed?
At this point, I hope what the judge now decides will be influenced by how her actions may look to the Circuit Court of Appeals. If they reverse her several findings to the point of overturning the verdict, she would lose a bit of respect and be forced to work harder in future trials. Who knows, probably she just doesn't care.
I strongly agree that an injunction completely and absolutely fails the "in the public interest" test of the Supreme Court. But this judge did a chain-saw massacre on Insmed at the claims construction hearing; and her interpretation of the meaning of "greater anabolic state" totally enabled the ridiculous "dead rats can't grow" defense by Tercica on the '151 patent - and that landed us here with a finding of willful infringement. So my confidence in her sense of equity is very close to zero.
On the lighter side, a buddy of mine once said after a corporate financial disaster: "There's at least one, single, absolutely guaranteed good thing to keep in mind - several months from now, we will be looking back."
this too shall pass
cheers
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
