Replies to post #3928 on Insmed Inc (INSM)

[Do DD]

Yes indeed, this is a very factual article. Also from two points of view of respected analysts the same conclusion: injunction extremely unlikely.

E.

[Aiming4]

2 questions about the Bloomberg article...

U.S. District Judge Claudia Wilkin today scheduled a Feb. 16 hearing on whether she should issue an injunction blocking Insmed's sales or require the company to license the patents.

Does the reference to Insmed licensing the patents refer simply to the royalty that Insmed would have to pay Tercica, or is there more to it?

The royalty rate set by the jury was for past sales, and the judge will have to set a rate for future sales

If (IF) the judge is concerned about her decision being overturned on appeal by Insmed, might she set the royalties on future sales low enough that Insmed would decide to accept them and drop their appeal? Tercica would then appeal, but if (IF) the judge is currently concerned that her decision may be overturned on appeal by Insmed, lower future royalties would be a way of placating Insmed. Then the theory goes that an overturn on appeal by Tercica would be less likely to be successful than an appeal by Insmed would have been.

[elmono]

What does this line in the article mean exactly:

"The jury said infringement of one of the patents was willful, allowing Wilkin to as much as triple any damage award.
"

Triple as compared to what? To what would the term 'damage award' specifically refer? To royalties...? Or to the upfront payment already set by the jury?