Replies to post #164943 on Biotech Values

[mouton29]

RE: MNTA

I'd have to research the matter, but the Momenta brief replying to Amphastar stated:

Nor is this case’s interlocutory posture a
reason to deny review of this important legal question.
Contra Opp. 11-13, 24-28. This Court often
grants review in preliminary-injunction appeals, even
when further proceedings are contemplated. Pet. 32.
Contrary to Amphastar’s suggestion (Opp. 13), this
Court reviews denials of preliminary injunctions when
(as here) important legal issues are involved. See, e.g.,
Doe v. Reed, 130 S. Ct. 2811 (2010); Pharmaceutical
Research & Mfrs. of Am. v. Walsh, 538 U.S. 644 (2003).

Given the subsequent summary judgment, the case is no longer "interlocutory" so if the court denied cert because they did not accept the preceding argument, they might reconsider. I would not hold out much hope, but the initial issue will be whether Momenta bothers to try.