Replies to post #132011 on Biotech Values

[MotionMan]

Is this motion why MNTA's share price is the reddest of the red today?

[iwfal]

Re: MNTA -- if at first you don't succeed, try, try, try ....

At some point don't you risk pissing off the judge by rehashing essentially the same argument again and again? (Unless this is just a tactic to set up for the appeal?)

PS Somewhat of a mystery to me that Amphastar would continue to push this knowing that if they launch and then are found to infringe it will be very painful for them. The only reason I can see for continuing to push is to increase their leverage in a settlement.

[RockRat]

Item 118, Amphastar is already sending an appeal to the appellate court?

Whatever, so the timeline is: late this week, Judge Gorton, for presumably the last time, renders a decision on rescinding the PI. Then Amphastar (or Momenta, if by some miracle Amphastar wins this round) appeals the PI at to the Court of Appeals. Have I got that right? How long would you expect that process to take (I'm figuring till year end at earliest for a decision from the Court of Appeals, but IANAL)? Can one do the emergency appeal motion a few times at that level, too, or is one whack all Amphastar would get there (I would guess the latter)?

While I completely understand the rationale for going to the appellate court, I don't get how the launch & suspension of the AG even figures into the decision making by Judge Gorton here. Yes, the Judge notes arguments were made about the AG, but the potential launch by Amphastar on its own seems enough to justify the PI. Besides, even if Sanofi "withdraws" the AG, the hybrid profit sharing remains instead of the more favorable pure profit split.
So Momenta guessed wrong, and Sanofi launched, anyway, apparently figuring MNTA wouldn't get a PI. That's disingenuous or a reason to reverse the ruling? WTF?! The 3rd party behavior of Sanofi should be just noise to be tuned out. Indeed, as the Court says:

"Apparently, Sanofi’s initial sales were in response to the FDA’s approval of Amphastar’s generic product and the suspension of such sales has been in response to the injunction. Although those sales have, no doubt, had some effect on the market, it is presumed that a full-blown launch of defendants’ generic would have a substantially greater effect. The Court concludes that, as the record now stands, it is prudent to maintain the status quo during the pendency of this litigation."

Seems to me this appeal will be stuffed once again, because nothing that material has changed. Yes, the status of the AG affects damages, but we're not discussing that yet beyond the bond, which has been deemed adequate to compensate Amphastar should it win. I agree with the other poster who said this ruling should take a matter of minutes.

Can't wait for the appellate court's decision on the PI to clear the air of this BS.

Regards, RockRat