2. The court held that in 1985, Teva would not have been able to duplicate the results of Proctor & Gamble’s process because the ingredient would not have been predictably able to anticipate the results that were obtained. Why was this an important part of the decision?
3. The court ruled that the chemist/expert for Teva was evasive in answering the questions about whether Teva would have been able to create a successful compound. In noting that the lower court discredited the expert’s testimony, what was the court saying about Teva’s claims?