By stating that they are close to approval, TEVA is asserting that they have characterization technology as advanced (practically speaking) as MNTA's. This sends a positive message to the market about TEVA's capabilities. Do they have equivalent technology? I think you can make a strong inference from the TEVA PR immediately following announcement of MNTA's mL approval, that they do not have the same level of sophistication, but are trying to get their application approved nonetheless.
Additionally ...
(*) MNTA had been asserting that they were close to approval several years before it actually happened. What would be the benefit of TEVA coming out and saying they are way behind and have several challenges before obtaining approval.
(**) If TEVA does manage to obtain approval, I think it likely that it will be as a non-substitutable branded generic. (see readmefirst on this possibility)
MNTA: the readers of this board know all too well. In biotech land if you aren't sounding positive in the face of dilemma you aren't trying hard enough.. Teva's words strike me as false bravado. Their motivation to obfuscate may not be only to keep MNTA down but is borne out of machismo. They are the bullies who don't want to be shown up by the young whippsnappers! We have big characterization skills too they bellow!! They don't want the perception that their tecnology is not good enough for the era of biogenerics- so they pound their chests a little. What did you expect them to say? We hope to get approval someday with our outdated technology? And then we see FOB business constantly knocking on MNTA's door?
I really don't know how the Lovenox situation plays out. All I know is that so far MNTA has done something that no other company in the world can do. Hopefully that's worth something more than today's share price
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
