Hector- In my view, injunction is highly unlikely for reasons stated below.
As mentioned before, for injunction to be granted Supreme Court has ruled that the following 4 tests must be overcome by the plaintiff:
(1) that it has suffered an irreparable injury;
(2) that remedies available at law are inadequate to compensate for that injury;
(3) that considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, a remedy in equity is warranted; and
(4) that the public interest would not be disserved by a permanent injunction.
Plaintiff has failed the 4 "tests" for following reasons.:
1) TRCA will not suffer "irreparable" injury. There are clear remedies that can repair the damages "such as royalty payments" or other reparations..
2) Remedies are available to adequately compensate for the injury suffered; that is royalty payment of 15 or 20 % more than fairly adequately compensates for the injury. This was what the jury ruled and the ruling was not unreasonable IMO. Infact many would argue that it was too harsh.
3) In considering the balance of hardships between the plaintiff and defendant, the injuction would completely tip the balance against the defendant and will lkely lead to bankruptcy and closure of INSM. As given as example in the past, when faced with this type of situation, courts have required royalty payments in favor of injunction.
4) Most importantly, there are clear advantages of IPLEX to Increlex. There are less side effects (related to seizure and hypoglycemia) but may be just as important it is much more convenient to use in that it only requires 365 painful injections per year (to a small child) versus 730 injections per year for increlex. Public interest will be greatly disserviced by not allowing kids to have fewer injections.
All 4 tests must be met for injunction to be granted. No reasonable individual can rule for injuction. Certainly, a public servant- such as highly qualified judge, a guardian of law and public interest- will require royalty payment in favor of injuction.
In regards to your statement about the finacial condition of the company, I generally agree that INSM is in deep finacial trouble and will require additional financing and "dilution" of stock. This is an important area of concern. But, there are many potential positives that can lift the stock price over the next 6 month.
1. Injuction not being granted (IMO greater than 90 %) will greatly lift the stock price.
2. Positive ruling in favor of inequitable conduct on 151 (IMO 45% chance).
3. Positive P2 data on MMD showing clear benefit. Major increase in share price (~ 90,000 patients in US and Europe, 1 to 2 bill market). (IMO- very likely)
4. Positive data on Noonan's. (IMO- very likely) Again 1 to 2 bill market.
5. Data on AIDs lipodytrophy.
If any of the above come to pass, we could have a marked increase in share price (especially the P2 studies with MMD and Noonan's). With higher share price, although necessary financing shouldn't be as painful. Also, with the positive results, there is a dramatic increase in potential partnership with company like PFE.
I am a firm believer that based on pathophysiology of diseases MMD and Noonan's, IPLEX is highly likely to be effective in these disease states and that is the main reason why I own this stock. If the P2 data is positive, then the P3 studies can be quickly completed (within 2 years) and data submitted for orphan drug approval (<200,000 patients). The drug can be submitted to FDA by late 2008, most likely in 2009. Assuming worst scenerio in the courts, INSM will pay royalty payments till 2010, patents 151 and 272 expire in 2010; IGF will be made via eukayotic process (plant cells) by Phyton Biotech by 2010 and patent 414 will no longer apply.
Like other longterm investor, this verdict has been very painful but there is tremendous amount of hope going forward.
JMHO.