Replies to post #2896 on Enanta Pharmaceuticals Inc (ENTA)

[willyw]

I'll have to echo that. The more I thought about that the more confused I got about it.
Surely the Gilead product has it's own patent/IP and I couldn't quite grasp how a new patent ....would *suplant* (in the sense of replace) be an appropriate word? Or would two patents in effect fighting it out to decide who gets the money mean a lawsuit?

Also, wouldn't having a product protected by an IP that made possible a HBV treatment (remains to be seen, of course) be a greater "win" as Enanta could conceivably become best in class, first highly effective to approval, with TWO patentable drugs owned by Enanta or coformulated so as to make it less possible for a competitor to use to test their in-the-works program? My simple take was the hope that the new compound/method would make that possible.
Perhaps I should have posted this in response to Dew's post instead of yours, but yours prompted me to also respond.

Ha! I was appreciative of Dew's post but was stopped while I pondered about how to reply. I hoped I'd be smarter the next day;
I'm not. : )

[DewDiligence]

I’m not saying that Hepludex infringes ENTA’s new HDV patent, but for the sake of discussion let’s assume that it does. Hepludex has had minimal sales to date (it’s not yet approved in the US), so almost all of the hypothetical upside from a patent lawsuit is still obtainable.