Browndog, I don’t consider myself a clever person, but I’ll try...

Browndog, I don’t consider myself a clever person, but I’ll try to answer your question.

Mike senior brought our attention to the progress of the US- filed TPM/daptomycin patent earlier this year. As you recall, Mylan struck difficulty with the US patent examiner, who ultimately rejected all patent claims. Mylan was appealing the decision.

The EU-filed patent has also been mentioned before. In this case, the EU patent examiner allowed the patent, which is in Mylan’s name.

“If the patent was granted and it was after POH commenced action against Mylan and the original agreement with POH is still alive and this latest invention contains TPM where do we sit with that situation” is probably the US$300.4 million dollar question that our clever and painstakingly slow arbitrator is working on. Rightful ownership of the disputed patent is likely one of the issues for consideration. I believe it is possible that the arbitrator has the option to order ownership of the patent be assigned to POH, although I don’t believe the inventors’ names can be changed.

In my opinion, Mylan’s continued prosecution of the TPM/daptomycin patent may possibly be seen as a sign that Mylan wants to own and use the IP – in other words, it sees commercial value in the patent. However, it may also be a tactic used by Mylan to support its claims of innocence – if Agila/Mylan has asserted that it hasn’t infringed/stolen POH’s IP, and is the rightful owner of the TPM/daptomycin patent, then not to proceed with prosecution of the patent could perhaps be perceived as an admission of guilt?