Seeking Alpha

Daniel B. Ravicher

View as an RSS Feed
View Daniel B. Ravicher's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    OFP, I don't disagree with you that the Galderma decision is relevant. I do disagree with you in what way it is relevant and what impact it will have. You somehow think that the Court of Appeals reversing Judge Stark in that case is actually good for Avanir. I disagree. I note that you then point out it was a split decision, so is that your hedge admitting it's bad for Avanir? I can't truly understand your position. Regardless, you are welcome to have your opinions. That's what makes a market. As for burden of proof, I do not argue that the burden has been shifted to Avanir, as the Court of Appeals said it was to Galderma. Had I made that argument, you could rightly criticize it. Rather, I said the fact that Judge Stark was reversed by the Court of Appeals signals to him that he needs to rethink his perspective on the issue of obviousness for pharmaceutical patents and that it was a good decision for the generics in this case.
    Jan 9 09:27 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    Tradestoxx, You are welcome to disagree with me and adopt Avanir's arguments. That is your right. Trade as you see fit and I will do the same. I wish you the best.
    Jan 9 09:23 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    With all do respect, you are obviously not a lawyer. Your statement "a different panel hearing Avanir would not be bound by the Galderama panel's decision" is 100% entirely incorrect. The Galderma decision is a decision of the Federal Circuit and from now on, unless and until that decision is overruled by the entire FedCir en banc or the Supreme Court, it is binding precedent on all other Federal Circuit panels, including what ever panel hears the ultimate Avanir appeal. So, to repeat, you are completely entirely unarguably wrong.
    Jan 9 09:22 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    Policy issues have no impact on my opinions. What I think the law should be is irrelevant to what it is. And, yes, the Yakatan disclosures were sufficiently public to be considered prior art.
    Jan 8 10:47 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    You have to ask the Seeking Alpha editors why your comment was deleted. Only they have the power to do that. I cannot delete any comment.
    Jan 8 10:40 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    If the case was good for Avanir, why didn't they bring it to Judge Stark's attention? And why would the generics do so if it was bad for them?
    Jan 8 10:39 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    You don't know the terms of settlement, so you can't possibly know if they settled from a position of strength or weakness. Further, later generic filers often settle because they have reason to spend resources on the case when they would not be entitled to the 180 days given to the first challenger. So, the settlements have no probative value on the merits of the case.
    Jan 8 10:37 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    How is the issue of my employment relevant to this article? If you'd like to make a substantive response, please do. If you wish to make a personal attack, save it. Indeed, resorting to personal attacks only proves you cannot discredit the substance of my article.
    Jan 8 10:35 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    The '115 patent does not exclude use for PBA. It merely requires effectiveness in treating pain. Therefore, it is incorrect to say the '115 patent does not cover use for treating PBA.
    Jan 8 10:33 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    You are correct that I did not, in my article, raise every single piece of evidence and every single argument made by the parties. I do link to all the briefs, which no one else had done for the public, so people can read them if they want. The point of an article like this is to summarize the matter, highlight the most important points, and provide my opinion. I did that. You disagree with me, which I can respect. But, also note, even if I am wrong about the '115 patent, it expires in two years any ways.
    Jan 8 10:26 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    You do not know your FRAP or Federal Circuit Rules. If a petition for rehearing is filed, the same panel would decide whether to grant it, and then the same panel would hear it again. There's a very very small chance of that happening. A petition for rehearing en banc would be decided by the entire active bench and, if granted, would be heard by all active judges, but that would not be called a panel, since it would be the en banc. The only other option would be for Galderma to petition to the Supreme Court to take the case and reverse the Federal Circuit's decision. Each of those is highly unlikely. But, if you want to maintain the opinion that my analysis is premature, that's your right. A difference of opinion is what makes a market.
    Jan 8 10:23 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    That is a distinction between the two cases, but not one that I think makes the Galderma decision by the Federal Circuit in any way good for Avanir. Indeed, I stand by my opinion that the Federal Circuit's reversal of Judge Stark's decision that those other pharmaceutical patents were not obvious is helpful to the generic challengers in this case. I actually quite amused that people are even arguing it's a good decision for Avanir.
    Jan 8 10:19 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    Motivation and commercial success were two issues Judge Stark relied on in his Galderma decision that the Court of Appeals expressly said he got wrong. You are correct that I did not in this article address ever single minor issue and argument. I explained the case, gave an overview, summarized the main arguments, and provided my opinion. You are free to have a different opinion, to think other arguments are more persuasive, and disagree with my conclusions. I don't see, though, how you can argue the Galderma decision from the Federal Circuit is somehow good for Avanir. That takes a real stretch. Indeed, if it was good for Avanir, why didn't they bring it to Judge Stark's decision.
    Jan 8 10:16 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    I explain in the article why I think the Galderma case is relevant, because it shows Judge Stark that the Court of Appeals disagrees with his opinion on the issue of obviousness of pharmaceutical patents. Of course the facts are different, but that does not mean it does not apply. As with others here, it is clear that we have a difference of opinion. I can respect that. I can not, however, respect your childish insulting tone. That indicates you are emotional about this issue, perhaps wagering more than you can afford on your investment in the company. I would strongly urge you not to invest so much in a stock that it causes you to lose the ability to be rational and respectful to those with different opinions.
    Jan 8 10:13 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Expected Decision In Avanir Nuedexta Patent Litigation [View article]
    You repeat Avanir's arguments quite well, but I still find them unpersuasive. As I wrote in my article, I expect others may disagree with my opinions, which you obviously do, and I respect that. Indeed, that's what makes a market. If everyone agreed with my opinion, there would be no opportunity for me to trade the stock, as its price would already incorporate that shared expectation. It's only because people disagree with my opinion that the share price does not reflect what I believe is its true value. Judge Stark will rule soon enough and then there will be no debate about what his decision will be, although I expect at that point the debate will shift to how the Court of Appeals will rule in reviewing his decision.
    Jan 8 10:08 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
346 Comments
308 Likes