Replies to post #121895 on Biotech Values

[investorgold2002]

Obviousness/
double patenting 25%

Non-infringement 10%

Indefiniteness 0%

Inequitable conduct 75%
=================== ===

I have made my case for inequitable conduct. I think this is their best chance. I believe even with the new standard they have a pretty good chance at winning. Of course I am just a layman(not a patent attorney). You can look at my posts on this subject.

Question:
Assume that MNTA/sandoz conducted some studies on rats with copolymer of 13-24ka and found zero toxicity issues. then could such evidence be used to invalidate a patent ..saying the claim itself was based on fabricated evidence(?). What type of defense(not inequitable conduct for sure) would that be ??

If we are lucky, Patentdocs attorneys may well write their take on this high profile case.....I have requested them to opine on this matter. Hope they do!

[exwannabe]

Copax trials odds.

I would like to change my estimates to :

For the CoM patents

Obviousness, double patenting, etc. : 40%
Non-infringement : 20%
Indefiniteness/Best Practice/Enablement : 5%
Inequitable conduct : 30%.

For the rest:

Obviousness etc. : 0%
Non-infringement : 80%
Indefiniteness : 10%
Inequitable conduct : 0%.


That comes out to 67% on the CoMs and 82% on the process patents, 55% overall.

I still think this is for entertainment value only. The FDA action dominates the valuation.

[investorgold2002]

http://www.patentdocs.org/articles_cases_obviousness/


some interesting cases on obviousness

[investorgold2002]

do u have the link to message which discusses why the claim "copolymer of lower molecular weight is less toxic" is obvious ?

updated based on my knowledge...

======================================
Obviousness/double patenting 0%
Non-infringement 10%
Indefiniteness 10%
Inequitable conduct 80%
======================================