Per the author of the Bloomberg article, Mr. Shea's full sentence was "They have built commercial inventory infringing our patents." She said that was all she was able to get, and that she substituted "Teva has" for clarity. I got stonewalled by MNTA's IR. They would give nothing more than a copy of the complaint and a statement that the complaint was all they had to say about their position. Apparently my little effort to get context stirred up something, though: if you click on the link to the Bloomberg story that contained the quote yesterday, you will find most of the story -- including the quote -- is gonezo.
Kinda makes you go "whoa." I would guess MNTA counsel shut down any further color commentary from MNTA employees, and apparently even have gotten that courtesy retroactively from Bloomberg!
I did not mention this to Ms. Decker, the author, and if she has noticed that most of her story is gone, she did not say anything. Hope she doesn't get paid by the word . . .
So now that that's settled . . .
"They have built commercial inventory infringing our patents," does not read like a hypothetical statement to me. So even if Shea spoke imprecisely (if the inventory is not in the US, it does not yet infringe) the implication that MNTA believes Teva HAS ALREADY manufactured using MNTA's patented process is inescapable. So I would again submit that I do not think Teva would be using those processes if Lupenox was what they are manufacturing. Do you?
The Lupenox process predates most of the allegedly infringed IP.
T-enox is not Lupenox.
If it is, Teva can save the hassle & expense and pull their ANDA now. To take the Lupenox gambit any farther, given their statements, would open them up to further legal liability from shareholders, if it hasn't already.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
