Based on the document in #msg-66864421, the case for non-infringement looks quite strong, IMO. Moreover, contrary to the view of several posters on this board, I think MNTA’s holding a patent on Copaxone characterization helps MNTA implicitly even though MNTA’s patent is not directly at issue in the patent trial. MNTA’s patent allows the Judge to more easily believe that MNTA could make an identical Copaxone product without infringing Teva’s patents, and thereby primes the Judge to consider NVS/MNTA’s non-infringement arguments in a favorable light. Regards, Dew
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
