>>Would you care to handicap the possible outcomes?
This one should be simple. The patent is invalid. The trial court ruling should be upheld.
If the Court of Appeals did anything else they would look very silly - IMO.
Keep in mind that the case was sent back once by the Court of Appeals with a very narrow charge. The trial judge commented that she had never seen so narrow a case remand. Attorneys agreed that it was more narrow than they had seen.
The judge even commented that she thought that neither Teva nor Amphastar would have needed to call a single witness. They could have come to court and rested their case - leaving it up to SNY to establish a reasonable excuse for the conduct.
The trial judge was amazing and wrote a great opinion. It would be very strange for the Court of Appeals to upset the judgment.
Apparently, we have a judge on the panel that is interested and has written on the subject of inequitable conduct before the patent office. That increases the chance that we will get a meaningful decision from a legal precedent perspective. That likely will slow the decision. Otherwise it would have been a good case to just issue a simple "affirmed" decision.
The only appeal beyond the Federal Circuit would be to the US Supreme Court. I suspect the chances of that approach zero. In fact, I cannot recall a single issue that might catch the interest of the Supremes.
ij
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
