Replies to post #107666 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

Does MNTA engage in spin? Yes, of course they do, albeit on a smaller scale than most biotech companies, IMO. An instance in which I think MNTA’s is spinning is where Craig Wheeler says the District Court’s consolidation of the NVS/MNTA and MYL Copaxone cases is not a setback for MNTA. I respectfully disagree.

At a minimum, the consolidation has delayed the start of the Copaxone trial by several months. It has also delayed the Judge’s ruling on the NVS/MNTA Markman hearing that took place in Jan 2010, which doesn’t really affect MNTA itself but does affect MNTA investors.

The most consequential downside of the consolidation, IMO, is that it may indicate that the Judge is unreceptive to NVS/MNTA’s argument for non-infringement, which is one of the four legal tacks Wheeler said NVS/MNTA intend to pursue in the Copaxone trial (#msg-56147443).

Comments?

[mcbio]

Re: MNTA/four arguments re Copaxone patent case

• As reported in the public court pleadings, NVS/MNTA intend to pursue four arguments: i) indefiniteness of Teva’s patents; ii) invalidity of Teva’s patents due to obviousness and/or double patenting; ii) non-infringement by NVS/MNTA’s product; and iv) inequitable conduct.

I assume MNTA need only succeed on one of these four arguments. Is that correct? Also, which of the four arguments do you see as holding the best chance for MNTA to succeed?

[DewDiligence]

Tidbit from a 1996 write-up on Copaxone:

http://www.thepharmaletter.com/file/85769/first-approval-of-tevas-ms-drug-copaxone.html

First Approval Of Teva's MS Drug Copaxone

25 November 1996

…Interestingly, there is little intellectual property protection on Copaxone, which was originally developed in the 1960s. Teva has applied for orphan drug status in the USA, which will give it seven year's marketing exclusivity.