The 2008 article in #msg-26577702 is apropos to the Protonix case and is worth re-reading. Note the comment by Bruce Downey, then CEO of Barr Labs (and now a director of MNTA).
Teva could conceivably be liable for treble damages
Few points why I think Teva would only be liable for single damages even if it loses the trial; first it had secured a favorable lower court ruling on the preliminary injunction in Sep 2007 prior to launching its generic version in Dec 2007, therefore not "willfully infringing". Moreover, as you've mentioned, Wyeth launched an AG and so further damages beyond Jan 2008 were also caused by Wyeth itself. Lastly, the case isn't closed yet, the judge will rule and his decision would probably be appealed. Btw, rumor here is that Phil Frost holds a different view (i.e. different than Eli Hurvitz) about this matter and is trying to settle with PFE.
"Teva Pharmaceutical Industries Ltd.(Nasdaq: TEVA) announced today that the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey denied Teva's motion to overturn an April 23, 2010, jury verdict finding the patent in suit not invalid. The Court also denied Wyeth and Nycomed's request for FDA to reset the date of Teva's final approval to January 2011, based on the fact that Teva has patent defenses remaining at the District Court, including patent misuse. Accordingly, Teva is not prohibited from making further sales prior to January 2011, the date when the pediatric exclusivity expires. The Court has not yet issued its underlying reasoning for today's decisions. Teva continues to believe the patent is invalid and unenforceable and intends to pursue all available legal remedies including appeals."
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
