<<<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?>>>
Intelligence has nothing to do with it. The jury simply needs to find specific facts. The jury does not need to understand the science beyond how the attorneys will educate the jurors about through their experts. Happens all the time.
<<<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?)>>>
No. By the time a case like this goes to trial, both sides already know all the evidence that is going to be submitted. There are no cards left to hold. You put your case out there, and you respond to their case. Kind of like an NFL football team. There are no surprises, you know everything there is to know about the other side, it is a matter of execution and responding on the fly to things that may go differently than expected.
Tinker
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
