Thats really self-serving logic. Let me turn it around.
Based on the same principle, we can argue that if Teva loses, then the FDA should not approve Copaxone because a court has found that Novartis did not steal enough important data and hence the copy cannot be exact. If Teva wins, FDA cant approve because the court will bar it. So its actually a win-win for Teva rather than the lose-lose the way you portray it.
The flaw in your logic is that it assumes argument=fact and two arguments in differing venues cannot be contradictory. At least my logic above looks at impact of decisions rather than arguments.
One possible consequence from the assumption is that Teva will win in court and in this case the 'fortune cookie' argument will matter only after 2014. I don't see why Teva should settle before Copaxone's patent expiration date, if they can win the patent lawsuit against NVS. The other problem is we assume Teva will be arguing to the court that NVS’ generic Copaxone is an exact copy while they may only accuse NVS with stealing some Copaxone trade secrets - not all of them.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
