Replies to post #103663 on Biotech Values

[EyeamBill]

Will The Copaxone MNTA/Sandoz Trial. . .

...versus Teva be a jury trial?

From my reading I saw mention of the judge ruling on matters of law and the jury on matters of fact. Since there are matters of fact apparently in dispute, does that mean that this is a jury trial?

If so, how can one find from the jury pool enough people who are skilled enough to understand what they're hearing yet not such biotech junkies, like us, that they're biased?

Is it simply up to the attorneys to select jurors who they deem to have intelligence to which they can speak to?

Finally, has MNTA/Sandoz tipped its hand for the denied summary judgement to the extent that their cards are now firmly on the table for Teva's benefit? (i.e., Does Teva now have a strategic, if not tactical, advantage for trial?)

Bill

[zipjet]

No MSJ on inequitable conduct has been filed.

That does not mean one will not be filed.

Further, Sandoz claims that additional facts supporting IC were discovered and has sought leave to amend their IC counterclaim. They would want amendment granted before filing an MSJ on IC. So it may still happen.

IC is inherently fact intensive. MSJ's are not designed resolve material fact issues. So in that sense, the hurdle is set high for an MSJ. But it is not a hurdle that is insurmountable.

Another factor that is not lost on the litigator is that MSJ's may flush out defenses that were not understood from discovery. Thus, even MSJ's that are denied may prove very valuable. They also help prepare the judge for the issues that will come his way.

In my thinking, the basis of Copaxone was known for many years - so many that the first patents (COP1) expired in the mid-1990's. In order to have other patent(s) issue, TEVA needs to show that there was a patentable advance on the technology of the 1970's that formed the first autoimmune treatments. I suspect that the advance was not so novel and unexpected as to be patentable.

ij