Replies to post #107908 on Biotech Values

[zipjet]

On a related note, Bill Marth claimed on a webcast in September that the Copaxone patent case was effectively decided in Teva’s favor already and that Teva would probably file a motion for a summary judgment that the patents are valid and infringed.

Has anyone seen such a motion?

Summary Judgment can be requested by either side in a case. It can also seek an order that certain facts are established such that they need not be proven at trial.

As I recall the practice, a defending party on a SJ did not even have to ask for SJ for the court to be able to grant the defending party SJ. (Admittedly, this was and likely remains a rare occurrence.)

Bottom line is that TEVA certainly could seek SJ (if they had not already) that the patents are valid and infringed.

ij

[flatlander_60048]

Perhaps Mr. Marth meant that TEVA already received appreciable benefit from the amount of time that the legal system took to process the Markman Hearing information and to render a decision on the motion for summary judgment. It seems like the summary judgment boiled down to a simple enough decision on whether sufficient information existed in the Judge's eyes to set aside the patent protection. If he was uncomfortable with this decision, then a rapid denial of the summary judgment request would have allowed the decision to be litigated in a more timely manner. Teva in a sense did win a battle in the war based on the amount of time it took for the decision to rendered.

Teva's strategy is clear, file enough motions, counter motions etc. to drive the patent litigation as far down the road as possible (2012 based on today's call). This seems to be an area where Teva excels due to the numerous patent challenges they have launched.

Regards

FL