Replies to post #113643 on Biotech Values

[tinkershaw]

characterizing the drug (in Amgen); Using a patented process

genisi,

Could you go into more details of these two exentions of Bolar, as these would cut to the heart of MNTA's patents. Teva would still need to develop a manufacturing method, after characterizing enoxaparin, that did not interfere with MNTA's patents.

All the examples I have seen caused very little harm to the underlying economic value of the patents at issue. That certainly would not be the case with MNTA's IP, as such a ruling would largely vitiate any economic value the patents might have.

Nevertheless, Teva would still have quite the task, because MNTA's process does not characterize so much as recreate the drug in the process. Simply characterizing the drug would still leave a very difficult problem in regard to then recreating it. Just as TEva themselves, they say so with copaxone (except that is not what MNTA does). So a harder task than it sounds.

But if Teva actually could utilize MNTA's IP to develop the product, and then manufacture it thereafter without the IP, yeah, that would pretty much leave MNTA's IP worth about ZERO. MNTA would need to keep it all as trade secrets and avoid any future publications and patents that require teaching of the process.

Thanks.

Tinker