Replies to post #120573 on Biotech Values

[investorgold2002]

so what is the new standard

Should BOTH Materiality and Intent to deceive be separately proven ?

I still think Materiality and Intent to deceive both are possible in Copaxone case.

when they failed to point out 2 human clinical studies where they concluded 7-24Kda was safe and tolerable to humans

they also conveniently omitted these 2 papers in the earlier patents and then prioritized way at the end of references with typos on titles of both the papers in the later patent.

Depending on how the court proceedings go TEVA may offer a settlement..not sure if Momenta would take it. With this new standard, it maybe 60:40 in Momenta's favor?? earlier it seemed like just high materiality would have done

[DewDiligence]

MNTA/TEVA—I was asked on another board whether the Court ruling in #msg-63573604 changes the odds in the Copaxone patent case. The answer, IMO, is: yes, but not by enough to worry about.

As can be seen in the table in #msg-59688565 (from Feb 2011), I figured there was only a 5% probability that NVS/MNTA would prevail on the inequitable conduct argument, specifically. This probability should now be somewhat lower, but the decrease amounts to round-off error, IMO.

[DewDiligence]

Teva arguments against PFE in the Viagra patent suit bear a superficial resemblance to NVS/MNTA’s arguments against Teva in the Copaxone case:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702304778304576377981860105532.html

[Viagra's] composition was covered by a patent issued in the early 1990s and due to expire in March 2012. The Israeli drug company isn't challenging that patent.

…Pfizer applied in the early '90s for a second patent covering sildenafil's use to treat ED, which was eventually issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office in 2002. That patent is due to expire in October 2019.

…In court documents, Pfizer argues that it initially wasn't obvious to people skilled in the art of drug research that an oral formulation of sildenafil could be used to successfully treat ED. Thus, Pfizer argues that its discovery was patent-worthy.
Pfizer said in a written statement it believes the patent is valid and infringed, and it's enforcing its rights.

Teva argues that certain claims of the second patent are invalid because prior research would have suggested to anyone skilled in the art of drug development that drugs like sildenafil could be used to treat ED. Teva…also argues the second patent amounts to "double-patenting" of Viagra.

Teva claims the second patent is unenforceable because Pfizer engaged in "inequitable conduct" by withholding certain information from the patent office. Teva alleges Pfizer failed to inform the office in a timely manner of a dispute surrounding a corresponding patent application in Canada. Pfizer argues the information was immaterial and was ultimately disclosed to the patent office.

Teva's inequitable conduct claim could be on shakier ground following a May 25 decision by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in a patent dispute between Abbott Laboratories and Becton Dickinson & Co [#msg-63573604].