On 1), your modification is reasonable and proper, IMO, but it comes into play only if another party gets FDA approval prior to 2014. I would expect MNTA to settle with the sponsor of a third FDA-approved generic on the same terms as with Amphastar, so NVS/MNTA’s generic exclusivity until 2014 would be likely even if another company got FDA approval before 2014.
On 2), I envision that 100% of the hypothesized 20% royalty on Amphastar’s sales goes to MNTA. The patents in question belong to MNTA, not the NVS/MNTA JV; moreover, post-2014, NVS benefits indirectly by keeping a larger proportion of the NVS/MNTA JV’s profits.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
