Replies to post #128023 on Biotech Values

[mouton29]

I am surprised that the TRO issued - it was NOT expected by me - and it has to indicate some tentative conclusion by the judge of the right of MNTA to injunction.

In fact the judge did make a finding that MNTA has a "reasonable likelihood of prevailing based on oral argument and memoranda. See below:


MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
GORTON, J.
In consideration of the plaintiffs’ Motion for Temporary
Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (Docket No. 18), the
Court has further reviewed and considered the Memorandum of Law
filed in support thereof, the accompanying exhibits and
affidavits and the oral arguments of counsel for both parties
during the hearing on this date.
The Court determines, on the basis of the foregoing, that
plaintiffs have demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success
on the merits and a significant risk of irreparable harm if their
motion for a temporary restraining order were erroneously denied.
At this preliminary stage, the Court concludes that the balance
of harms weighs heavily in favor of granting plaintiff temporary
injunctive relief because plaintiffs face a significant risk of
Case 1:11-cv-11681-NMG Document 39 Filed 10/07/11 Page 1 of 2-2-
price erosion, loss of market share and reputational harm if
defendants are permitted to “launch” the allegedly infringing
product before this Court is able to consider the respective
arguments of counsel on the merits at a hearing within two weeks.
On the other hand, defendants face little, if any, prospective
harm that could not be fully protected by a bond posted pursuant
to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). After defendants have filed their
responsive pleadings, a comprehensive hearing on the merits will
be held on Thursday, October 20, 2011, at 11:00 a.m. in Courtroom
#4, Moakley Federal Courthouse. The Court will then determine
whether further injunctive relief is warranted.
TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER
In accordance with the foregoing, it is hereby ORDERED that:
1) until the close of business on Friday, October 21,
2011, the defendants, and any entity or persons acting
on their behalf, shall not advertise, offer for sale or
sell in the United States any generic enoxaparin
product that allegedly infringes one or more of the
patents issued to Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and at
issue in this case; and
2) the plaintiff, pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c),
shall, on or before the close of business on Tuesday,
October 11, 2011, post a security bond in the amount of
Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000) to secure any costs
and damages that may be incurred or suffered by the
defendants should it later be determined that this
temporary restraining order was improvidently entered.
So ordered [Emphasis added by me]

Investorgold quoted the decision at http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=67812248 but there were some stray quote marks that made me wonder if a word or two was missing, and rather than taking the time to compare, I have just pasted the entire decision from Pacer above. I think IG is mastering pacer.gov but I am guessing he never was a law review editor (neither was I)