Replies to post #128034 on Biotech Values

[iwfal]

MNTA - Bayer vs Housey

See, e.g., Bayer
AG v. flousey Pharms., Inc., 340 F.3d 1367, 1377-78 (Fed. Cir. 2003) (granting motion to
dismiss and holding that a patent claiming research processes is not infringed by the manufacture
of a product)

Background - Bayer vs Housey was a ruling about the interpretation of a section of the law (271g) that prohibits the importation of a product "made" abroad using processes patented in the US. In this case Housey's assertion was that Bayer had used Housey's patents to discover a useful drug thence imported.

Bayer vs Housey ruled that only patents used in the manufacturing were intended to be covered by the law - patents used in discovery were not protected by law.

Altogether agree, as is captured elsewhere on these boards, that if:

a) the Momenta patents were only used in discovery

OR

b) in proving to the FDA as a one-time event that the aL is acceptable

Then Momenta's case is much weaker - but given the FDA's concerns in these matter either of the two above conditions is true.

PS Amusingly the OCR they use in electronically capturing the legal rulings stinks.

[mouton29]

At first, I thought that this press release by Watson (quoted by IG on the other board) was remarkably straightforward. It starts:


 

Watson Provides Update on District Court Order Concerning Generic Version of LOVENOX®
PARSIPPANY, N.J., Oct. 8, 2011 /PRNewswire via COMTEX/ --

Watson Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (NYSE: WPI) today confirmed that the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts has granted a request by Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. and Sandoz Inc. for a temporary restraining order (TRO) preventing Watson and Amphastar Pharmaceuticals, Inc. from marketing or selling Amphastar's Enoxaparin Sodium Injection product, a generic equivalent to Sanofi-aventis' LOVENOX®. The temporary restraining order expires on October 21, 2011. During the hearing on the TRO, the court made no finding concerning plaintiffs' likelihood of success on the merits of their claim. However, in its written order, the court found the plaintiffs had demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits for the purpose of the TRO. The court scheduled a full hearing on the merits of Momenta and Sandoz's motion for a preliminary injunction for October 20, 2011. Watson expects to launch the product during the fourth quarter of 2011 if the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction is denied.

http://ir.watson.com/phoenix.zhtml?c=65778&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=1615025

On reflection, though, a more cynical interpretation is possible, which is, it may not be wise to publicly castigate the judge and their exparts submission (quoted in the message I am responding to), which was then quoted in the press, could be so interpreted. This clarifies that the judge did in fact, make the required finding that MNTA is likely to prevail.