Michelle Lee

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

He’s basically suggesting Andrews could decline an immediate injunction and allow continued infringement temporarily, with money damages compensating UTHR.

That is a much better outcome for LQDA than the “NDA instantly withdrawn” interpretation we’ve been worried about.

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

And that opens the door to:

PH-ILD stays temporarily on the label → LQDA continues selling → potential damages/royalty accrues → PH-ILD eventually comes off → appeal proceeds. (4)

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

And that opens the door to:

PH-ILD stays temporarily on the label → LQDA continues selling → potential damages/royalty accrues → PH-ILD eventually comes off → appeal proceeds. (4)

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

If Andrews accepts that framing, the remedy becomes much more flexible.
Instead of: Patent infringement → statute requires NDA approval reset/withdrawal
you get: Patent infringement → Andrews decides whether an injunction is warranted under eBay, and how broad it should be.(3)

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

If Andrews accepts that framing, the remedy becomes much more flexible.
Instead of: Patent infringement → statute requires NDA approval reset/withdrawal
you get: Patent infringement → Andrews decides whether an injunction is warranted under eBay, and how broad it should be.(3)

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

The lawyer’s theory seems to be that because YUTREPIA is already approved and being sold, and the infringement now is actual commercial inducement under the PH-ILD label, the case has moved beyond the classic Hatch-Waxman “artificial infringement” setup. (2)

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

The lawyer’s theory seems to be that because YUTREPIA is already approved and being sold, and the infringement now is actual commercial inducement under the PH-ILD label, the case has moved beyond the classic Hatch-Waxman “artificial infringement” setup. (2)

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

So, if I understand correctly, the patent lawyer is making a non-consensus legal call: he does not think §271(e)(4)(A)’s automatic approval-reset remedy applies here. He thinks Andrews is more likely to treat this as an ordinary post-approval patent infringement case. (1)

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

So, if I understand correctly, the patent lawyer is making a non-consensus legal call: he does not think §271(e)(4)(A)’s automatic approval-reset remedy applies here. He thinks Andrews is more likely to treat this as an ordinary post-approval patent infringement case. (1)

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

$LQDA

Have to say, I’m really impressed with the Jefferies analysts. They’ve invited a KOL (U.S. patent lawyer) to discuss the case with clients today. Will share if any useful takeaway

[zohm @zohmbastic]

$LQDA

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

@GravityAnalyti1 Frankly I’m more focused on the skinny label. Appeal takes a long time and winning that shouldn’t be the base case scenario here (which is not in this price anyway.) If they can score a stay that’s a win already (again don’t think that’s in the price).

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

$LQDA

Have to say, I’m really impressed with the Jefferies analysts. They’ve invited a KOL (U.S. patent lawyer) to discuss the case with clients today. Will share if any useful takeaway

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

@_Ceiv I think my point is slightly different. I’m saying LQDA may be better off starting the PAH-only label process before final judgment, rather than waiting until after and potentially getting stuck with a judgment against the current NDA. Filing now doesn’t mean giving up the appeal

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

My 2 cents: What $LQDA should ideally do before final judgment is two-track this aggressively: file the PAH-only sNDA with FDA as soon as possible, and ask Andrews to write the judgment in a way that expressly preserves FDA’s ability to approve that amended PAH-only label.

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

Self-learning on $LQDA: the Norwich precedent is less scary once you see the timing. Norwich removed the infringing indication after final judgment; LQDA is trying to skinny-label PH-ILD before judgment. Whether Andrews sees that distinction as meaningful is key. Welcome thoughts

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

The reason I’m still holding my positions is that management seems well aware of the best course of action and, so far, appears to be on the ball - at least based on what they’ve told sell-side analysts.

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

My 2 cents: What $LQDA should ideally do before final judgment is two-track this aggressively: file the PAH-only sNDA with FDA as soon as possible, and ask Andrews to write the judgment in a way that expressly preserves FDA’s ability to approve that amended PAH-only label.

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

Self-learning on $LQDA: the Norwich precedent is less scary once you see the timing. Norwich removed the infringing indication after final judgment; LQDA is trying to skinny-label PH-ILD before judgment. Whether Andrews sees that distinction as meaningful is key. Welcome thoughts

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

@tradergoku 昨天整个欧洲都在讨论这个大新闻 Israel's Netanyahu: Co-pilot of flydubai plane underwent radical Islamist indoctrination - https://t.co/RmI6b7HhEx

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

@alex_ahdoot @biotech_hunter @MashReez @BuyingFDs @BiotechHBI Definitely - You shouldn’t take anything from anyone at face value! This is just for hearing their side of the story.

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

Jefferies on $LQDA
Shed some light on mgmt thinking.

Disclaimer: I own positions
@MashReez @BuyingFDs @biotech_hunter @BiotechHBI

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

@shufen46250836

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

@MashReez Agree. Think the near 60% drop has priced in much worse.

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

@adderation30mg @layzhis They play damn dirty. Ruins the fun of football.

[Michelle Lee @MichelleLe02]

@SixSigmaCapital lol why is this showing up on my timelines pls stop. NBIS is mostly about US revenue this is really amateur.