G...
I'm sorry...
Here is what happened...I sent your post to my daughter (email)..and I got this reply..
Hi Dad:
I have not had a lot of time to review the materials. However, from what I've looked at, I mostly agree with the writer's conclusions. One thing I disagree with is his conclusion regarding contributory infringement. I was able to find some case law that the existence of a substantial non-infringing use does not preclude a finding of inducement. However, due to the fact that the judge granted summary judgment to the defendants on this issue, it is no longer contested, i.e., the defendants have won on this sub-issue.
I will try to go over the remainder of this later this week. Sorry, I'm a new associate and so therefore low man on the totem pole. I'll let you know if I have any additional input.
I have attached a copy of what you sent me with some additional information/comments/case law delineated in bold red type.
I still think there are very strong arguments regarding the non-obviousness issue and indirect inducement. At this point, it will really come down to a battle of the experts.
Love you,
Bonnie
Looking at this later I made the mistake of thinking this was Bonny's opinion when what she was writing was your your post I had sent her earlier...
On Tuesday, January 21, 2020, 02:28:39 AM UTC, Anthony Weikel <jesse.livermore@yahoo.com> wrote:
A layman summary of the patent case (Part 2; see Part 1 here)
[Mod - who sticked Part 1 - please replace with this]
Plaintiff: Amarin
Defendant: Generics (Hikma & Dr. Reddy)
The litigation is about the MARINE
(i) Patents (obviousness)
(ii) Indication / label (infringement)
REDUCE-IT indication (label); usage (treatment; off-label), study (other than support non-obviousness) and patents are not relevant. (E.g. Existence of direct infringement by physicians – treating patients for CVE is not enough without inducement … and MARINE label (package insert) does not encourage treatment for CVE).
Nothing – other than the MARINE label – is relevant regarding infringement. Hikma JPM presentation (which is not a forecast or Hikma’s expected revenue; see more details about it here or Generics "real aim", (unspecific) intent or knowledge of off-label usage does not matter. (See more below at; “Inducement”)
The topic of the litigation is obviousness and infringement. I will focus on infringement, since I see obviousness as the easier (easy) part, as Generics bear the burden of proving patents are obvious. They refer to small studies, small pieces (as prior art) that are - maximum - good to raise questions, to establish theories but these are not (are far away from) a “clear-and-convincing-evidence(s)”, does not prove anything. Furthermore, many secondary considerations support non-obviousness.
Secondary considerations are a reality check on the determination reached through three factual inquiries [(1) Determining the scope and content of the prior art.; (2) Ascertaining the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art.; (3) Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art].
The invention may appear on paper to be obvious, but if reality does not match theory then the invention can be established as being non-obvious.
[“Secondary considerations” often come later (or secondary) in time but it does not mean that it is secondary in importance,” may often be the most probative and cogent evidence in the record”. Stratoflex, Inc. v. Aeroquip Corp., 713 F.2d 1530, 1538 (Fed Cir. 1983).
Courts consider the following secondary considerations in determining obviousness:
(1) The invention’s commercial success,
(2) Long felt but unresolved needs,
(3) The failure of others,
(4) Skepticism by experts,
(5) Praise by others,
(6) Teaching away by others,
(7) Recognition of a problem,
(8) Copying of the invention by competitors, and
(9) Other relevant factors.]
Please accept my apologies...I thought Jeez,,,She even sounds like G...
He must be smarter than I think...
":>) JL
AI
