Replies to post #131913 on Biotech Values

[mouton29]

if Judge Gorton had not accepted NVS/MNTA’s argument that SNY’s AG has been suspended because of the PI, he would presumably have found another reason for maintaiYning the PI

This cynical view may be correct, but the judge did use some reasonably harsh language in characterizing Momenta's other arguments -- "disingenuous" for two of them and "misleading" for another. But perhaps I am being disingenuous myself to place much stock in that.

[exwannabe]

MNTA: 2. However, if Judge Gorton had not accepted NVS/MNTA’s argument that SNY’s AG has been suspended because of the PI, he would presumably have found another reason for maintaining the PI, so the alleged suspension of the AG may not be as consequential as the Judge’s ruling makes it seem.

Per the legal intro, 4 criteron are used and none are individually decisive.

The court stated that on 1) (likelyhood of Amphastar prevailing) and 2) (irrepararable harm to A.) that MNTA was prevailing. So even if 3) (irreparable harm to MNTA) was in doubt I think you are clearly correct that the stay would not have been granted.

BTW, I think that another court stating that MNTA is likely to prevail (and backing the key claim construction issue) is starting to make Mr Market look errant in not evaluating the value of this lawsuit. I am starting to have some slight doubts about the efficient market theory :-)