The market needs to get bigger. The conundrum for me is why that has not occurred with the well publicized study results showing how docs can help their patients reduce risks of CV problems by adding this benign med with no real side effects.

B

O—absolutely right. Pissing in the wind never made anyone money.

B

D—a win on this appeal does not guarantee a jury trial. The case could still be lost on summary judgment if the judge concludes there are no factual disputes and on the undisputed facts AMRN can’t prove its case. I don’t think that is very likely as there seem to be factual disputes about intent to infringe here.

Hikma will no doubt seek summary judgment, and we would need to get over that hurdle before a jury trial.

B

This is an issue for Congress. Very much doubt that HW will be amended to give more protection to drug inventors.

Rose—

These cases are all factually intensive because they involve proof that one party (the generic company) is trying to induce someone else to infringe a patent. Each case has different facts, and here Hikma convinced the trial court that Amarin had not alleged enough of the right facts to plead a valid induced infringement claim. So the case could not be put to a jury. The GSK v. Teva case was a jury’s verdict after hearing all the evidence. Teva’s press releases were what hurt it the most in that case. We don’t have the same evidence of induced infringement.

So it’s clear that generics can’t do what Teva did, but not yet finally resolved whether what Hikma did can be considered as induced infringement. This will be clarified in the CAFC decision.

B

N—sorry about the Trump Q, out of line there. SCOTUS had no reason to touch this case. It had no national legal implications, and the court does not take business cases that don’t raise important federal legal Qs. The obviousness issue for Amarin was mostly a factual question, not a legal one with the standard for obviousness not really in play. Another reason SCOTUS review was not very likely.

The big mistake was hubris of former mgmt taking this bet the company case to trial before this judge, with no plan B if they were to lose. The HW law is tilted in favor of generics, and the current conditions of high drug prices influence some judges to apply the law to make patent protection harder to retain. This was always a risk, despite the solid evidence that the AMRN indication was not obvious at the time. With 20-20 hindsight, the risks were too great to allow the decision to be made by the judge, who like most decent judges, was smart enough to write the decision so that it would be hard to overturn. Very bad business decision to not settle and eliminate the big risk. SCOTUS review was always a moonshot chance only.

B

I’ve taken both and the generic is the only one causing fish burps. Not scientific but real.

Until they figure out how to produce it more cheaply. Call me a skeptical shareholder. Hard not to have this perspective. Still holding though!!

Not following you dude. US Sales are stunted with no evident path for growth because generics can sell their stuff for all indications. I have a script off label from my doc and my insurer will only pay for the generic. That has to be happening all over the country every day.

So they can steal the valuable US market but not the rest of the world? That’s the thesis?

What am I missing? Let’s say that the Brave study leads to another broad indication for V in treatment of Alzheimer’s. Why can’t generics steal that hypothetical market the same way they have stolen the CVD market even though they can only legally sell for the trig indication?

Bouf

Yup

Marjac does not rep AMRN, as far as I know

One of the biggest challenges for lawyers who litigate cases in court is to help clients separate their emotions about a dispute from the question of what is in their best interest from a business standpoint.

Totally understandable why many on the board wish to litigate on to right what was a huge wrong and huge loss in the patent case.

I’m just trying to point out the reality that our system of justice gives all parties one chance to litigate your dispute through trial and appeal, and after that the avenues for continuing are hugely limited, or practically speaking, non-existent.

So even if AMRN technically could invoke Rule 60, it is not necessarily in shareholder interest to do so. The company has to make sales, period. Litigation is ALWAYS very expensive and never certain. It should not spend the company’s limited resources on an effort that has very very very very low chances of success.

Put the money into sales efforts, not titling at windmills.

B

Did you really just write that? Time to move on. US courts have to rely on finality or many cases would be relitigated ad nausiam. That case will NEVER be reopened.

You mean rumors before the 8k filing or reliable info?

Four days of meeting date?

WHEN WILL RESULTS OF VOTE BE PUBLIC?

The big volume today came in because there were huge stop loss sell orders in at 1.70, including mine. Despite some pretty big paper losses, I bought some more at the 1.70 level because of my belief the drug may actually take off. But I won’t lose any more money on this stock, and I bet I am not alone in that feeling, hence all the stop loss orders.

The good news is someone was interested enough in the stock to push it down to the point they could pick up the shares at 1.70.

Seems like the stock will now drift until the proxy contest plays out. I think most retail will vote for Denner, but not sure about the Tutes.

Would be interested in thoughts about how Tutes will view the proxy war.

B

CB—do you or anyone else here have a fix on actual ex-US sales to date? I hear a lot about “expanding” other markets, but it’s the actual sales that are going to matter. Has the company made any projection on expected sales ex-US in 2023?

They should just give him 2 board seats and move on. It’s all about ego at our expense.

Agree completely. The company will spend too much valuable cash on JPM and expensive lawyers to fight this. But it is emblematic of the management of this company: no sense for when to settle for the good of the company. Biggest management failure was not settling the patent case. May be seeing more of the same here. These jabokes need to get their egos out of the way and strike a deal for the good of the company. Jeeeez……

Yes yes and yes

Yes yes and yes

Not sure it is just insurers. The whole system is geared in favor of generics. I have an off label prescription for my ailments and had to renew it recently. I did not specify the brand when renewing with my docs office. When CVS filled it, the generic was used.

Yes should be seasonal

NFL Redzone is the way to go for football with no commercials. Has a cost but worth it.

Great article TTE. Thanks for sharing. You are right on.

Yup, best summary of current state of play I have seen.

Thanks T.

Captain Beer is my hero!!

The SCOTUS does not take cases based on case specific issues like alleged fraud on the court that two lower courts did not see. They take cases that have broader implications for how the law is developing across the country. The only chance for them getting interested in this case is if they have problems with how obviousness issues are being dealt with in the Fed. Cir. It’s a real long shot but kudos to Marjac for taking it on.

B

The buy out will happen when the market bottoms. Not there yet.

It’s about sales, not about tilting at windmills

Too much false hope is not a good thing

I get it, the truth hurts

Pissing in the wind

Courts are far from infallible, which is exactly why wise counsel and clients in a case like this do not cede control over the outcome to an unpredictable judge. It’s not rocket science, and it is not as simple as “the courts are corrupt,” as much as some people need a bad guy to blame things on.

Can’t dispute you “ment” what you said. It was just way wrong.

Dude, the Supreme Court in the US is controlled by the conservatives. You obviously know nothing about our court system.

The problem with this case was not the court system, it was how the company and its counsel failed to use the system in a way that protected the IP. Bad lawyering and bad management decisions about settlement. With the risks presented by this case you never take a crap shoot with a novice federal judge in Nevada, never, never, never. Just awful judgment all around to leave the decision to this judge.