You treat the four enumerated outcomes as if they are the only outcomes, they are discrete and non-overlapping. None of those are true.
Well, the four legal arguments I enumerated are the ones Craig Wheeler cited on the most recent conference call. Assuming that these four arguments are independent and encompass all possible avenues to victory introduces a negligible amount of error relative to the imprecision of our probability guesses, and hence your point in #msg-56349803 is a red herring, IMO.
If you actually spent a few minutes to rough out numbers for each of the four arguments, I think you would find that your 90%+ probability of MNTA’s prevailing in the patent case would be hard to justify.