What is the case for Obviousness or Non-infringement?
My previous post addressed the argument for non-infringement. The argument for unenforceability due to obviousness is that Teva’s patents at issue in the lawsuit constituted a double-patenting abuse, i.e. they were obvious extensions of prior patents that have long since expired.
Bear in mind Copaxone's patents expire in May 2014, now less then 3 years away. An earlier launch is obviously better given a more competitive MS market, but even if Teva were to fend off the patent challenge, it's coming not too far in front of the end to their patent life. To my eye getting actual FDA approval is a lot more important than the patent challenge, cart before the horse.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
