There’s some convoluted argumentation in this thread, IMO. By directing MNTA to produce a Memorandum of Law (i.e. a precedent) in support of MNTA’s interpretation of one of its patent claims (which must be submitted to the Court today), the Judge signaled that MNTA already met the irreparable harm threshold for a PI. Thus, the remaining issue of consequence in the PI calculus is the likelihood of MNTA’s prevailing in a patent trial on the merits, and SNY’s AG launch has no bearing whatsoever on that.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
