Thanks, I suspect the same regarding patents based on CardioLink-9. The distinct dosing regime is also a very good point.
With regards to ECLA and KP, I've done some searching on IP and investigator-initiated trials. Seems like it's standard for the PI's institution to sell off (assign) or exclusively license any patents generated from such trials.
Perhaps the end result will be something similar to CVD patents (a mixture of licensed patents from Mochida + in-house IP from Reduce IT.)
I agree the generics are going to sell with disregard for their approved indication, but the smaller their piece of the pie (legally speaking), the better for our infringement case.