Replies to post #144364 on Biotech Values

[bladerunner1717]

Getting back to Teva’s PR cited above, why did Teva say that the District Court ruling “should” prevent FDA approval of NVS/MNTA’s Copaxone ANDA if the FDA is free to approve the ANDA at any time? Answer: Teva’s PR used the word should rather than the word will because Teva was stating an opinion rather than a matter of Hatch-Waxman law. It has always been Teva’s contention that Copaxone cannot be replicated, and Teva’s latest PR re-iterates this opinion.

I don't see how the ruling has any applicability to TEVA's contention that Copaxone cannot be replicated. I think TEVA's PR is more than misleading: it's downright false.


Bladerunner

[DewDiligence]

Musings about MNTA’s post-Court-ruling valuation: #msg-76918548.