Replies to post #127033 on Biotech Values

[zipjet]

Clearly, the NVS-MNTA Lovenox agreement from 2003 did not foresee MNTA’s owning IP capable of blocking a competitor’s entry into the market. That’s why I think the sharing of legal expenses in this instance is unclear.

More important than any early agreement is the huge potential benefit to BOTH parties.

Even in the absence of an agreement covering this, I would expect that if BOTH parties thought the litigation worth doing (the case against TEVA offers a strong positive inference), that some cost sharing would be appropriate proportionate to their respective profit sharing.

But the foregoing notwithstanding, I would think the 2003 agreement would contemplate later patents and protect them jointly where the parties decide it is worthwhile.

ij

[orangeone]

What do you make of the statement by Watson (see MNta board) that boasts that they are fully indemnified by Amphastar? I suppose as a public company they are required to inform on this point. However isn't that a sign that Watson has incentives to launch at risk and stick Amphastart with the risk? Thus a reason making settlement less likely.