Perhaps I don't understand the legal arguments here, but I "heard" (sorry if you're offended by this) that the other generic, amphaster, applied for a summary judgment which momenta argued against because the supreme court was going to hear Classen. I guess there was a recommendation from the solicitor general that classen not be heard by the court. that made mnta's argument against summary judgement moot, and the likelihood of this case being heard by the supreme court very low. i don't think anything definitive, but sounds like set back for mnta.
as far as bond, if other generic has case that sales were lost because of mnta's prelim injunction, doesn't that mean bond is at risk? thought mnta owned 100% of bond.
i bought mnta because i thought downside limited, but i didn't realize there is still financial risk if mnta loses case. please correct if i'm wrong here.
If MNTA's claim is considered equal to Classen, the stock is damaged greatly. Classen's "invention" is a dose schedule. Hardly much of anything. For MNTA, All the work that went into developing a method for determining the contents of an extremely complex chemical was essentially given-away with the patent publication. The Solicitor General is not helping, the refusal to en bank is not helping and I have little faith in the Supreme Court to really understand how MNTA has been harmed. The inventors have made millions already. If the company was too stupid to keep their secret behind closed doors, then we investors have bought into a dog that just won't hunt.
I know somebody who works at law firm handling mnta's side. This guy isn't working on the case but knows of it. According to him it's supposed to be part of some public record so there's no insider stuff here (he's a lawyer!), but I don't have a link. My next step will be to ask mnta's ir group. Let me know if you hear anything and i'll do the same.