News Focus
News Focus
Replies to #56709 on Biotech Values
icon url

ghmm

12/26/07 8:39 PM

#56711 RE: rkrw #56709

In an older call (Q4 2006) they also said they could petition the FDA to eliminate the 180 day waiting period based on futility of their (Teva/amphastar) application. But I am guessing this would take the better part of the 180 days to do. It sounded like IF they (Momementa) were approved that some sort of deal would be negotiated.

I was going back over an older call and Momementa said that Teva's application in Canada was approved but each province needed to put it on formulary which never happened and the application was delisted (rejected). They (Momementa) believed it was because of requirement to for trials. Has anyone ever heard anything about this from another source (like Teva)?

icon url

DewDiligence

12/26/07 8:57 PM

#56713 RE: rkrw #56709

>MNTA – I think what Jon may have been alluding to is assuming mnta is approved first, how do you discount the possibility that teva/amphastar (or someone else) isn't approved later?<

We can’t discount this entirely; however, if Sandoz/MNTA is approved first, I think the probability is high that their ANDA will be the only one ever approved. The higher this probability is, the less consequential a delayed competitor’s approval is in the valuation analysis.

I think the risk of an AG from SNY far outweighs the risk of a delayed approval for Teva or Amphastar. In case #1 in #msg-25373113, eliminating the risk of a delayed approval by another company (for the sake of argument) would raise my $57 figure by at most $1-2. In other words, it’s basically round-off error, IMO.
icon url

zipjet

12/26/07 10:03 PM

#56719 RE: rkrw #56709

>>If the patent is overturned within a few months (likely) and no generics are approved within 6 months of that(also likely imo), does the 6 month exclusivity period expire? mnta has stated this is the case.

The exclusivity period proved to be a very effective "carrot" for the comparatively simple drugs. It built the entire generics industry. It was critical BECAUSE many companies could qualify and launch the same drug in short order. So six months without competition, other than the branded, for a company that had not spent hundreds of millions of dollars on development studies produced huge economic profits. In this context, the statute allowing the exclusivity period to start running from patent invalidation (at the appellate level) made good policy sense.

In the era of complex glycosolated mixtures and biologics that are difficult to duplicate and get qualified, the exclusivity period is unlikely to have the same significance. Thus the need for new legislation that addresses this new era.

Bottom line is that MNTA's assertion that the exclusivity period will start to run on the patent invalidation makes sense to me.

Of course, lawyers can and will contest that if there is any advantage perceived or real. But that should not keep SNY from launching.

ij

icon url

DewDiligence

12/26/07 11:23 PM

#56720 RE: rkrw #56709

>MNTA – If the patent is overturned within a few months (likely) and no generics are approved within 6 months of that (also likely imo), does the 6 month exclusivity period expire? mnta has stated this is the case.<

The clock for 180-day exclusivity is triggered by either a non-appealable legal ruling in favor of the patent challenger or a product launch by the challenger—whichever comes first. Hence, the guidance from MNTA is consistent with the statutes.