Replies to post #128467 on Biotech Values

[iwfal]

MNTA -

If they infringed in the submission only, they would be safe by the literal law, but clearly not by the intent of the law.

Part of the basis for the exemption was that it could never harm the patent owner during the life of the patent, and clearly this is false here.

Furthermore, it was obvious that the exclusion was intended to be for patents on the invention being submitted, and not every patent in existence (which is what A is arguing).

Courts do look at intent the law.

Interesting point - but would they give the punitive damages to MNTA since the stated words of the law are so different from the intent that it would be hard to say that Amphastar intentionally made unfair use of the patent?

[biomaven0]

I agree you have a point here - my previous post was overstated. I really don't know how the courts will ultimately rule on this issue.

Note that your point applies also to screening and tools patents, and it looks like the courts have heretofore declined to rule on the reach of the statute in this regard.

Peter