Replies to post #131909 on Biotech Values

[jb_118]

re MNTA:

If the court rules that Amphastar has already infringed, then a very substantial damage claim is very much in play.

The AG trigger is costing MNTA pre-tax 30-40M per year that gets transferred to Sandoz, even if no AG drug is sold and it doesn't change the market dynamics. I wonder how the court would rule about damages in this case, as MNTA/NVS hasn't brought up at all as far as I can tell the reduced profit share to MNTA in the different scenarios.

It's at least a few $ off the PPS.

[mouton29]

<<Assuming the MNTA patents holds up and Amphastar has not dodged it, did Amphastar already infringe? My understanding is yes, because they were using the invention to manufacture at the time for commercial intent, regardless of the sales actually happening.>>

Also, did Amphastar not already assert in court that in fact they made sales? I'd have to go back and look at the pleadings, but there was a fair amount of commentary on this board about that assertion, and while Dew and others countered it was bogus, it may be harder for Amphastar to say that.