Replies to post #9187 on Momenta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (MNTA)

[linhdtu]

Well then I would rephrase rrwine's opinion/sentence as follows:

Losing the case to Teva would seem to imply that Mnta's technical prowess or ability to replicate other people's complex molecules is not as strong as believed without running afoul of IP patents.

[rwwine]

"That may be true; however, the case just decided by the District Court was about Teva’s IP, not MNTA’s."

You are correct sir, my mistake. I should have been much more specific. My opinionated statement was a general comment as to what I personally view in hindsight. Given all I have read, reviewed and understood, I specifically had come to the conclusion that the IP estate surrounding MNTA’s m-Lovenox was so superior, that companies like Amphastar had very little if any chance of FDA approval let alone market the product successfully. Today I know this was a gross mistake and assumption on my part and in no way am criticizing MNTA science or legal skills.

Additionally, I unfortunately assumed that given the tremendous amount of money invested by MNTA/NVA on developing IP for mCopaxone and a production strategy, that they (MNTA) had surely developed and patented IP that would lead to successful production without even coming close to infringing on TEVA’s IP.

I understand the landscape could change for MNTA over the next 1-2 years and they could prevail on these open unresolved legal cases. I am just expressing my “surprise” and disappointment if you will as to the events of the last 12 months and how I and perhaps other investors “may” not view MNTA proprietary technology as “superior” as I had at one time. As with all things, time will tell.