Replies to post #125421 on Biotech Values

[exwannabe]

MNTA: Re. the trial date decision.

Maybe we need one of our lawyer pals to chirp in here, but I would think it very likely that the Judge set the date based on input from the two parties.

So there might be almost no difference between "the parties agreed" and "the Judge said".

[biomaven0]

The patent case is an example of why I don't agree with the majority opinion on this board. I can think of quite plausible explanations for why Teva is agreeable to a delay without any implication that Teva is dubious they will get approval.

For example, Teva might want to tweak their (off-shore) manufacturing process in a way that strengthens their non-infringement argument. Or Teva might believe an approval will come quicker than any possible court decision no matter what the schedule, and believe the more time they have to settle the case before litigation the better.

My basic point is there are plausible arguments that go both ways, and so I think it is mostly a waste of time to try to read the tea leaves here by trying to guess at Teva's motivation (even assuming it wasn't just the judge himself that set the schedule).

Peter

[DewDiligence]

…Teva and Momenta agreeing on a date and Judge decreeing [the date] are not completely antithetical - but they are very non-overlapping and yet amazingly come to very similar conclusions.

There’s nothing at all amazing about it. As noted in #msg-66393497, the Lovenox patent case is considered urgent by nobody.