And among other things, it does appear that some of Sandoz' evidence regarding inequitable regarding can't be used. Sandoz attempts to use some expert testimony from the October trial -- separate from the inequitable conduct trial in September -- to support its findings on inequitable conduct. Not gonna fly.
On the other hand, I think Teva's argument that viscometry is a time and temperature reaction test is also not going to fly.
The rulings with respect to molecular ratios & molecular weight are going to be crucial. There is so much of both parties trying to have it both ways that I can't get these aspects of the infringement defense straight in my head, at least not yet. Also, the ratios aspect would appear to depend on the meaning of "approximately." Given that there is some batch-to-batch variation, the ratio of any randomly chosen batch is probably not going to be exactly that, which is why Teva uses "approximately" in the patents-at-issue. How far away from that do you have to get to not infringe? Teva claims that if you can round it down to the integer, it infringes, i.e. that because one rounds 1.3 down to 1, Sandoz' product infringes, even though it contains 30% more tyrosine than Teva's.
My brain hurts; waiting for help carrying this load.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
