You have to wonder why, page-22

AC

Obviously correct (in the context of that article comment) and I'm not a lawyer however would there be a consideration that by engaging in & maintaining the licensing agreement etc, given they could have waived it off during company C acquisition, that it could be inferred and implied at this time that company A has "intent" as per the agreement to commercialise, use the teach / process and / or pay fees at some point?

Would have to establish why company A wanted to maintain it the first instance I guess. Loosely similar to the article comment of why license it in the first place? 

By maintaining it, did company A receive or achieve certain things based around maintaining the agreement (information, process etc) that has allowed it elements of the claims by POH and are those detrimental or adverse to POH? 

Does the Agila patent and recent Dapto approval fall within these thoughts? 

One could safely assume (if assumption is ever safe) that there must have been something with the claims that Mylan has had to at least defend or I doubt arbitration would have proceeded to this point. 

It's worthwhile trying to understand the claims as @turps has just reiterated and how the law could possibly relate to them in POHs case. 

Couple quick links re 3 parts of the claims. Just as an overview and probably been covered by LT holders anyway but... 

Unjust enrichment. 

https://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/About-Singapore-Law/Commercial-Law/ch-19-restitution

Misrepresentation. 

https://definitions.uslegal.com/m/misrepresentation/

Breach of confidence. 

https://www.inbrief.co.uk/contract-law/breach-of-confidence/