Replies to post #114339 on Biotech Values

[exwannabe]

Re: Handicapping the Copaxone Patent Case

I disagree with the architecture of your analysis here.

I think the 2 CoM patents need to be separated from the rest.

For the process patents, your non-infringement point seams valid, but even stronger. I would guess all of these fall with high odds. Though I thought so before, so not a big difference.

The CoM patents do not change. These would only be non-infringing if the MW of mC was higher than the patent, but does that pass the FDA? But these do have a higher odds of being tossed for indefiniteness or ruled unenforcible for inequitable conduct.

My main point is the analysis really needs to be broken out by the 2 sets of patents.

[investorgold2002]

" Obviousness/
double patenting 40% 40%

Non-infringement 30% 55%"

Have you explained how you assigned the above probabilities ?

What is the case for Obviousness or Non-infringement?