Replies to post #129121 on Biotech Values

[iwfal]

I would be interested in any articulation of the significance of the judges focus as applied to the claims and facts we have

The Judge is not seeking a technical explanation from MNTA; rather, the Judge is making MNTA do the grunt work of finding legal precedents for MNTA’s interpretation of the patent claims at issue. That’s why the Judge’s Order in #msg-68232191 directs MNTA to produce a memorandum of law.

I would suggest this is not really answering Zip's question - kind like saying that a mathematical proof should have some math in it. (yes, I wrote my post technically - but take it as obvious that any legal brief will have to cite some legal precedent). I will say that zip is probably looking for something more like (and I will try to write it more legally):

Is this towards enablement - because the judge doesn't believe 'determine' without a description beyond 'separation method' is adequate?

Is this towards obviousness - because the judge doesn't understand the difference between this and one of the earlier patents?

? I honestly do not think we can understand the point of the order without a little more data than we have.

[zipjet]

I read it.

It just makes the same error - thinking that the law has utility without understanding the facts to which it applies.

Yes - it is a memo of law. But the point is to apply the law to the facts. Some of those facts are undisputed like the claims of the patent. Others such as the process which Amphastar is employing are disputed. And all of them are subject to characterization by the parties.

ij