Replies to post #125905 on Biotech Values

[north40000]

I do not see it either. Too many variables to make such a broad blanket statement.

In general, you may practice your own patent[process of making or using 'x'] but still infringe a dominating patent that claims 'x' as a composition. An objectively high likelihood that acts will constitute infringement is the general test---judges of course have considerable discretion in increasing a damages award. Courts will look to objective recklessness on part of infringer that avoids its duty of care to not commit the tort.

[DewDiligence]

An award of treble damages in a generic-drug case would likely require that willful infringement be crystal clear. I’m not aware of a generic-drug case where this has ever happened.

Is NVS/MNTA’s willful infringement of Teva’s patents crystal clear? I don’t think so, and the existence of MNTA’s 7,884,187 patent further muddies the waters. If NVS/MNTA were to launch generic Copaxone prior to a final ruling on this matter by the appellate court, it’s unlikely, IMO, that there would ultimately be an award of treble damages.

This discussion is mostly academic insofar as I expect an out of court settlement. The main relevance of the treble-damages threat is that NVS/MNTA will be able to negotiate a better settlement if the parties think the probability of treble damages is low.