I have done some research on Wilken. Some facts:
1. She issued a stay for injunction against SONY for the PS2 controller pending appeal, but that was pre-EBAY.
2. She's quiet liberal.
3. The chosen date for Feb 16, 2007 for the decision is kind of weird.. Seems like she's waiting for EMEA action(Jan 22 for 180 day timelimit, then Feb around the time EMEA approves) before she decides. See if EMEA approves IPLEX instead of increlex, then she MIGHT feel better about injunction in the United States leaving EU for INSM...so it's a split. US for TRCA till 2018. EU for INSM for 10 years.... i am just speculating for the dates.
4. Having to decide IC and Injunction on the same day will have 2 different interpretations. First, either Wilken has already made up her mind to go against INSM on IC to validate the jury's damage awards, then decide on injunction based on the four tests from EBAY case. Or Secondly, i am speculating that she's leaving a backdoor for INSM to mistrial the whole thing because she realizes that she made a mistake not doing IC first, which will be chewed on at the appeals court, which might throw 151 out of the window anyways, so she left this backdoor for INSM to get out to look like it's a mistrial by intentionally not deciding on IC issue. That way, she is forcing a deal amonst DNA/TRCA/INSM. I am forseeing DNA purchasing INSM to get the BP3 patents then licensing to TRCA and keep the other indications in Phase II all to DNA itself. Again, I am not a lawyer, I am a speculator.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
