Replies to post #103529 on Biotech Values

[EyeamBill]

What's So Hard To Follow?

LOL

:-)

I'll wait for the legal talent on this board to give me the Reader's Digest version.

Thanks for the info.

Bill

[DFRAI]

Docket - Teva vs Momenta

It seems that on 3/31/2010 - Discovery phase was closed

At the same time 3/31/2010 - judge Peck sent the file to Judge Barbara S. Jones

On 8/26/2010 - the parties withdrew the foreign defendants and experts and the judge also ruled that all claims against Novartis and Sandoz are dismissed - i believe these claims pertained to the allege trade secrets supposedly stolen by Novartis from LEK pharma.

With this out of the way, the judge can concentrate on the patent issues at hand and render a decision in the next 2-3 months.

[RockRat]

FWIW, the interests of a couple of Teva's expert witnesses. Can't tell from the record if their declarations were stricken or not:

"Biologically significant protein binding occurs with a group of polyelectrolytes known as glycosaminoglycans (GAGs). These mammalian polysaccharides are the most highly charged macromolecules in animals. Although they play a role in the action of many signaling proteins responsible for tissue regeneration, angiogenesis and cell differentiation, structure-property relations for GAGs are unknown. Unlike proteins and nucleic acids, they are never homogeneous and therefore never “pure,” so their characterization presents a huge challenge to classical biochemistry. We approach this problem with the model GAG-protein system of heparin-antithrombin, applying electrophoretic methods coupled with mass spectrometry and protein modeling."

http://www.chem.umass.edu/faculty/dubin.html

http://www.gadconsulting.com/

It looks like much of the juicy stuff haas been sealed or redacted.

Regards, RockRat

[RockRat]

Having been given an early look at the key documents in the Copaxone litigation . . . I'm not getting the expert witness thing here. Teva's expert witnesses seem mostly to be trying to defend the "average molecular weight" issue, and to me eye they hadn't helped the cause much by the time expert witness discovery period had ended in late March of this year. Then, in mid June, Teva files for leave to "substitute" an expert witness, which is apparently granted. For some reason, Momenta/Sandoz wanted to strike the expert testimony from the winter, even though it did not look to me as though it hurt them. Those motions appear to be under seal, but were apparently granted, since Teva was allowed to introduce a substitute in the summer. Dr. Gad's testimony is taken and put under seal with no further ado (I can imagine the court getting tired of this crap, and admonishing counsel that no further ado would be brooked.).

The only way I can read this, is that Momenta/Sandoz's attempts to get a summary judgement based on the earlier testimony didn't work, so they moved to strike that testimony, got it stricken, and now have the testimony of Dr. Gad -- about which we know nada. They file a sur reply, again under seal, to which Teva is allowed to respond.

Have I got the play by play right here? Also, noticing a cross motion to strike expert testimony from Teva. Later, a motion to substitute an expert witness by Sandoz is denied. Not sure what that means, if the two are even connected (it might relate to the trade secrets stuff, which seemed to be resolved a while ago, but bits of the aftermath keep showing up). Annoyingly, I can't tell if these motions to strike were granted, denied, or simply left hanging for the time being, rendering Dr. Gad's declaration some kind of supplement or back up.

Anyhow, unless Dr. Gad pulled a rabbit out of his hat for Teva, I like Momenta/Sandoz' odds on the indefiniteness issue as well as the inequitable conduct issue. Teva appeared to be trying to have it both ways wrt the toxicity/molecular weight issue, which goes to inequitable conduct. And the lack of a definition of "average molecular weight" is major, and goes to the indefiniteness issue. I think Momenta/Sandoz ultimately prevail, and that the possibility of prevailing soon via summary judgement is not so remote.

But I defer again to folks with actual legal training. I gather Dew will make the documents generally available a shortly so everyone, including the biotech values legal team, can check them out.

Regards, RockRat

[RockRat]

Too much to ask for an updated docket snip?

TIA & Regards, RockRat