Mauricio Flores was quoted in the June issue of Corporate Legal Times in an article reporting on Merck KGaA v. Integra LifeSciences, et al. which was argued before the U.S. Supreme Court this spring. Integra argued that Scripps was conducting research for a lot of commercial reasons unrelated to a FDA application. "We think that the evidence show that what was going on at Scripps was not FDA related, that they were just trying to come up with some FDA justification after the fact," commented Mr. Flores, who argued the case before the Supreme Court on behalf of Integra. "They were doing it to generally strengthen the scientific premise of Merck's drug program. The premise is that if you inhibit a particular receptor with anything, whether its' an RGD peptide or something completely different, you can inhibit the growth of blood vessels. So that's a non-FDA related purpose."