The Wall Street Journal is quoting pharma stock analysts, tonight, who plainly seem to know less than nothing about patent law:
. . . .The [Mylan] settlement "may clarify the Clarinex patent," said Robert Hazlett, an analyst at BMO Capital Markets. . . .. . . .While Sepracor isn't reaping significant revenue from its Clarinex license, said Piper Jaffrey analyst David Amsellem, the settlement helps ensure that there won't be any competition for at least a few more years. "That was certainly the assumption, that there could be a generic of Clarinex fairly soon. Obviously the settlement delays that," he said. . . .
I've read -- and already written about -- the Mylan settlement order. It does nothing to clarify the '274 patent. Actually, should Mylan clear its ANDA through FDA before 2012, Mylan will be able to sell its 5 mg version of the quick-dissolving desloratadine tablet, early.
Note also, that the second quoted source above says most analysts "expect[ed] a generic fairly soon". But now they've been confused by Schering's spin of the Mylan news.
Now at least the quoted-analyst doesn't expect a generic soon, because he doesn't fully-understand how little the Mylan settlement means, as a technical matter of law, in the patent suit. [Shame on him/them -- for only listening to Kenilworth about this.] There are still at least six firms with the chops to have the '274 patent invalidated.
[I would now make a comment about CEO Hassan only telling half of the story to these analysts, but I'd even bore myself -- as although it would be entirely accurate, it would also be deeply-repetitive of my earlier remarks.]
My bet? This matter will heat up, as Spring becomes Summer 2009, with the six remaining parties in interest. Remember that Sandoz has (like Orchid) also filed a motion to have the so-called '274 patent, on desloratadine, declared invalid.
No comments:
Post a Comment