OK thanks. I'm glad we got the expedited appeal, although I'm not sure if that means the court is recognizing the importance of the case, or it does that when both parties request it.
Either way, it seems we'll know our fate a few months earlier now, which should line up pretty well with my January 21 calls.
I have to agree with HDG clinical dissection of the facts.
++The HTG vs. VHTG discussion is so central to everything--singer HAS to find a way to having it and its ramifications discussed by the CAFC panel without losing it due to prejudgment of validity by the lower District Court. This approach then allows Singer to opens up Pandora's box for the generics because it forces a discussion of all the scientific mis-assumptions, statistical and factual errors that might otherwise get swept under the carpet as having been already adjudicated by the lower court bench orders. ++Of course the gorilla in the room is the procedural errors especially the illegal play-off of secondary consideration of the Graham criteria that HDG JL and numerous others have elegantly outlined in prior posts. ++Of course the iron clad way in which Du presented the prima facie evidence of obviousness was critically and obviously flawed but we don't get to expose that to a new set of impartial ears until we get past the acceptance of procedural errors to allow its consideration. I am sure lots of people with legal backgrounds who understand the CAFC and its prior case precedents will have other views--just my stab at the facts...the generics brief will guide so much of our thought in strategy to counter. Hm
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
