Replies to post #121883 on Biotech Values

[exwannabe]

Mouton, could you clarify a few points?

I assumed that the "but for" rule was that the patent MIGHT not have been approved "but for" the issue at hand. Is it "might" or "would"?

Even w/o that though, if the facts are that TEVA told the PTO "this (MW change) is better" while telling the FDA "this is the same", then I would consider that egregious conduct.