>>If I were arguing the case for Teva/Amphastar, I would assert that SNY’s fraudulently obtained patent materially delayed a decision by Teva and Amphastar to even consider a development program for a generic version of Lovenox. Were it not for the fraud, Teva and Amphastar might have filed ANDA’s several years earlier and these ANDA’s might have been approved by now.
The counter argument is that even building upon technology advances not available in earlier years no company has been able to sustain an ANDA for lovenox.
But I suspect the damages issue is far broader than the loss of profits by a competitor. The wrong may ultimately be held to justify disgorgement of the profits and a multiplier in favor of the government acting on behalf of the public that has been injured by higher than non-patent-protected pricing would have delivered to SNY. Now that is the kind of case state attorney generals could make hay on. :-)
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
