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: rkrw who wrote (170)	8/8/2006 3:00:30 PM
From: IRWIN JAMES FRANKEL	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3027

>>if they fail to overturn on phase I, it takes longer to get through phase II? True but the inequitable conduct is likely to win. >>Same inequitable conduct issue as before, same judge who ruled the first time, same appeals court, what and how will the inequitable conduct outcome (and reversal) change? If it's all the same info as before and the judge places a higher burden of proof, is she likely to rule no on inequitable conduct? It seems to me that not getting summary judgment (which uses a very high standard) does not suggest that the VERY SAME evidence in a trial would be insufficient to win at trial. Even under the elevated standard for summary judgment, inequitable conduct was established. But motive was not sufficiently proved for the summary judgment. I think the same facts in a trial with the lower standard of proof (guessing it would be clear and convincing) would result in a finding of motive to deceive. That would result in a win for Teva/Ampha. I suspect that the court will grant a partial sj establishing the necessary facts other than evidence going to motive. If that happens it could be a pretty short trial even for the well paid patent bar. :-) ij