Replies to post #125881 on Biotech Values

[DewDiligence]

MNTA—Can't remember what the consensus was regarding the success of the non-infringement approach, but I thought it was low. Now it seems as though it may be the strongest argument out there, and perhaps the easiest to show (as opposed to inequitable conduct, for example).

Non-infringement is the most likely avenue to victory, IMO—see #msg-59688565. This view is based on the presumption that MNTA’s 7,884,187 patent* bolsters NVS/MNTA’s defense. Regards, Dew

*http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1&Sect2=HITOFF&d=PALL&p=1&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htm&r=1&f=G&l=50&s1=7,884,187.PN.&OS=PN/7,884,187&RS=PN/7,884,187

[genisi]

Could MNTA/Sandoz get approval w/o determining those molecular weights? If not, they are trying have it both ways, assuming they are able to

My thoughts were that by stating that mC would not be infringing because it "does not meet the asserted claims since it does not meet the molar ratio limitations (6:2:5:1) claimed in the patents", they actually say that mC is not identical to Teva's drug but still is "similar enough" in a manner that should satisfy the FDA. They must have some very strong methods of proving similarity.