Twitter | Search | |
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC
A representation of expertise from various fields of scientific endeavor, offering a comprehensive analysis of companies in the healthcare sector.
2,257
Tweets
356
Following
665
Followers
Tweets
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC 30m
Replying to @scheplick
Agree, have to have some cash. But short/long mix also shines in these situations; can cover a few short positions and flip long until market rebounds (if you perceive the dip/correction will be short-lived)—especially those short positions with longer timeframes.
Reply Retweet Like
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC 19h
Replying to @jeromeleonard5
Let’s call it, ‘responsible Taoism.’ Worry is always destructive. And there are endless fruitless endeavors. Act where effectual, with unbridled effort. Then accept fate calmly.
Reply Retweet Like
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC 20h
There’s no point in trying to dodge lightning.
Reply Retweet Like
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC Jan 27
Alpha exists in bio/pharma investing where you can grasp minutiae beyond the average expert in the field.
Reply Retweet Like
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC Jan 26
Replying to @CletusMcGillic1
Not trying to be insulting, but, your understanding of “the label” and how the courts interpret/weigh each section of it is sophomoric. You would benefit immensely from reading this:
Reply Retweet Like
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC Jan 26
Replying to @OilManGT
Perfect. That’s where alpha is born.
Reply Retweet Like
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC Jan 26
Replying to @OilManGT
I am extremely confident as to what her decision will be. It’s not like predicting the weather next month.
Reply Retweet Like
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC Jan 26
Replying to @MedResCol
If ANDA labels are not found to induce infringement of the “12-weeks” limitation, OR the “Other Health Benefits” claims, the case is dead and ruled in favor of DRL/Hikma. And that’s very likely to happen. You should consider our latest analysis:
Reply Retweet Like
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC Jan 26
Replying to @MedResCol
already found this to be true (see below). The only reason the patents were allowed by the examiner was due to secondary considerations, not the content of claim 1 of the ‘929 patent.
Reply Retweet Like
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC Jan 26
Replying to @MedResCol
and what is left are or are not then found infringed (direct or induced). Claim 16 of the ‘728 patent was disclosed in the batch analyses of Epadel manufactured pre-2008 (99.8% pure). That’s an easy delete. What about claim 1 of the ‘929 patent? Clearly obvious. The examiner
Reply Retweet Like
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC Jan 26
Replying to @MedResCol
It’s a rudimentary matter to show that because claim 16 of the ‘728 patent and claim 1 of the ‘929 are invalid as obvious, that therefore there can be no induced infringement of these claims. And the order in Hatch-Wax trials goes this way: all claims found invalid are stricken,
Reply Retweet Like
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC Jan 26
Replying to @MedResCol
It is already invalid as obvious. Technically, this is also true of claim 16 of the ‘728 patent. See both patents’ claims asserted at trial below:
Reply Retweet Like
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC Jan 26
Replying to @MedResCol
HDGabor is correct that the “Other Health Benefits” claims on LDL-C and apoB are not present in claim@1 of the ‘929 patent. Thus, if there is no inducement of the Other Health Benefits claims, claim 1 of the ‘929 patent, *could* be infringed for other reasons. Unless..
Reply Retweet Like
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC Jan 26
Replying to @MedResCol
HDGabor has made some adjustments in his latest overview, and it’s much better now. He also points out an admission by us, which is correct. But, there’s a big problem... Let’s take a look:
Reply Retweet Like
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC Jan 26
Replying to @kwong03959714
There are five (5) clear prior art references that show this. I cover them all in Part II (on obviousness) of the latest analysis, which will be published this upcoming week. Part I (on inducement) can be found here:
Reply Retweet Like
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC Jan 25
Nice call. Entered UUP put leaps around same time in Oct. About to add TLT put leaps to that mix next week; 1-yr target $130.
Reply Retweet Like
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC Jan 25
The point I’m making in all this is not that TSLA isn’t great/doesn’t have a great product, but rather, are bulls right that sales will keep doubling all the way up to 4mn cars sold/yr w/w? I don’t think so. I think it’s more niche than they assume and the curve will plateau.
Reply Retweet Like
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC Jan 25
In 5-years? Definitely not renewables. That will take a long, long time to become mainstay. And to James’ point, currently hybrids seem to be about on par with EVs. For those with solar, sure, they’re better. But now we are even further afield.
Reply Retweet Like
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC Jan 25
But Table 2 above fully weighs such data. And concludes it depends on area. In some areas, hybrids are greener than EVs. Significantly so.
Reply Retweet Like
Medical Research Collaborative, LLC Jan 25
Well, in the interest of full disclosure I was also bullish in $200s, and got into many a debate with TSLAQ as to why I thought shorting there was perilous and low-$200s was likely fair value. But that’s the same exact reason I’m now bearish. Still, I like TSLA as a brand/idea.
Reply Retweet Like