Replies to post #129235 on Biotech Values

[zipjet]

It also dramatically reduces the damages that MNTA could have potentially have claimed.

I don't think so.

I would argue that the launch of the AG is a direct result of and the damages proximately caused by the Amphistar intent to launch (possible actual launch).

ij

[RockRat]

Why can't Momenta argue that the AG was prompted by the infringement of Amphastar, thus keeping the stakes the same? Because that's pretty clearly the case, or Sanofi would have done this long ago.

Regards, RockRat

[DewDiligence]

Re: rationale for SNY’s AG

…it also dramatically reduces Amphastar/Watson's risk if they decide to launch at risk, which at this point in time I believe they will given the reduced risk if the PI is not granted.

That’s only half the picture—the other half is that SNY’s AG launch lessens the upside for Amphastar to launch at-risk in the event that the Judge does not impose a PI.

SNY might be figuring that lessening Amphastar’s upside is more likely to induce Amphastar to settle the case—which is clearly what SNY wants— than reducing Amphastar’s downside. It seems illogical, but I think this is at least as good an explanation for SNY’s action as what zipjet posted about getting a jump on stocking the channel.