Replies to post #89462 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

Re: Leerink Swann’s report on the Copaxone Markman hearing

I’m glad to learn that the “random vs non-random” argument surfaced in the courtroom:

They also highlighted that TEVA was inconsistent in its claims that Copaxone is a random or nonrandom mixture of Copolymer 1 species with US & EU patent offices, as further evidence that TEVA played it "fast and loose" with the USPTO.

The claim of randomness is one of the weakest elements in Teva’s case, IMO. I commented on this point eighteen months ago in #msg-30647865.

More from Swann’s report:

TEVA's claimed range of 5-9 Kd is not reproducible and the patents make it impossible to know whether a generic product made to conform to the same molecular weight range is the same as TEVA's product made using a different gel filtration column under different standards and conditions. MNTA had to use its technology to reverse engineer and characterize both product and process, since the patents do not teach these key aspects of the invention adequately.

This, too, is bullish for MNTA. See #msg-45378265 for related discussion.

All told, Swann’s take on the Markman hearing is clearly positive for MNTA, so we now have two bulls (Swann, Oppenheimer) and one pseudo-bear (Barclays).