Replies to post #128576 on Biotech Values

[iwfal]

I would submit that large pharma companies have people who do this routinely. Amphastar presumably doesn’t, but that doesn’t make them any less culpable in the Lovenox patent case.

I stand corrected to some degree - but would, in return, submit several things:

a) I doubt that they track every piece of every application or issued patent. It is just very difficult to do even in a field with with one is intimately familiar - and the in-process patents appear to have an order of magnitude more chaff. But that said, it seems reasonable to suppose they may track key pieces from key competitors. (Long ago I tried to filter through all of the wireless patents to find the key ones - the problem is not just volume but the opaqueness with which the titles and claims are written.). For instance right now we are in the midst of a wireless patent world war - and I'd bet a lot of money that no one really knows how it will turn out. Which items will be key assertions? ...

b) As the reference I called up earlier today pointed out - in some ways a company is legally better off NOT to track patents. Because to track them and still infringe comes with penalties.

PS Earlier this weekend I spent some time sorting through Momenta's issued patents - again I will state that I'd be surprised if Amphastar could avoid stepping on some additional claims and/or patents. That said I'd bet Momenta keeps some dry powder for the next generic to come along - I surely would if I were them.