Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Biotech / Medical : Momenta Pharmaceuticals Inc. -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: idos who wrote (2871)	10/25/2011 12:11:56 PM
From: tuck	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3027

I'm not sure about reduced damages, but I don't see the reduced irreparable harm. Had an AG launched before aL approval, sure. But it did not; it was clearly triggered by the approval of aL, and said approval was achieved by defendant's alleged infringing behavior. One could argue that Sanofi had other reasons, and thus one would have to subpoena third parties (i.e. Sanofi execs), but the timing really weakens that argument, cannot be lost on the judge. The other argument is simply that it's an event beyond Amphastar's control, but this is like making a cobra angry and throwing it in someone's occupied bed and claiming you had nothing to do with it biting the occupant. Regards, RockRat

To: idos who wrote (2871)	10/25/2011 12:31:26 PM
From: DewDiligence_on_SI	Respond to of 3027

There’s some convoluted argumentation in this thread, IMO. My own opinion is that the AG launch will have a small effect, if any, on the probability that the Judge issues a PI. By directing MNTA to produce a Memorandum of Law (i.e. a precedent) in support of MNTA’s interpretation of one of its patent claims (which must be submitted to the Court today), the Judge signaled that MNTA already met the irreparable harm threshold for a PI. Thus, the remaining issue of consequence in the PI calculus is the likelihood of MNTA’s prevailing in a patent trial on the merits, and SNY’s AG launch has no bearing whatsoever on that.

To: idos who wrote (2871)	11/28/2011 12:03:29 PM
From: tuck	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 3027

Amphastar's request for the stay of the preliminary injunction is denied, and the order reveals Sanofi has suspended sales of the AG, after selling some "at a substantial discount" to a couple of large customers (CVS and McKesson). All we need now is Sandoz agreeing to return the non-AG profit split. Amphastar had better hope so, too, as it could be on the hook for damages related to the differential, estimated at ~$30 million annually, pre-tax, if not. Cheers, Tuck