Replies to post #156729 on Biotech Values

[tek_jansen500]

That leaves generic copaxone very vulnerable though. Copaxone is what MNTA is counting on when their cash runs out in a few years. They will have the 50% profit share regardless of exclusivity, so they should still be okay for cash. But if there's no breakthrough on IP protection post-commercialization, and they're sharing the generic copaxone market with Amphastar or someone else, that cash flow becomes seriously restricted. They'll be profitable, but only modestly so, I would think.

Under those circumstances, I still like MNTA as an investment, but I might be inclined to close my current position and wait for a better entry point. Follow-on biologics are a long way off if copaxone doesn't have protection.

I find the current situation seriously unjust, given the huge value that MNTA's technology has created. But unless someone here can convince me that MNTA's copaxone is likely to be protected, I'm not comfortable being long. I'll close out and get back in later.

And of course, it's no one's responsibility here or anywhere to make me comfortable in my investments, but I do value the opinions of Dew and others on this board. Thanks in advance for your thoughts.

[pollyvonwog]

it’s reasonable to assume that the FDA will be less revealing of the methods used by ANDA applicants in light of the CAFC ruling in the Amphastar case.

I agree with your point about MNTA's trade secrets, but I'm not so convinced the FDA will be less revealing. If/when they approve m-copax it will be too quite some fanfare and I'd imagine the FDA will have to be equally as thorough (and revealing) in their reasoning as they were with enox.