Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
sts-bb is on ignore-but if you read the responses to bb's posts--which i receive, posters are "shocked" why jt gave the extension, and some are jumping for joy b/c bb says the extensions must be a sign of settlement.
so no, you are wrong posters do take his falsities seriously, as he quotes the orange book and other non related issues to this suit.
I am sure you will clarify the matters to those few who follow bb's theories as law.
8
bouf-courts will NOT grant injunction AFTER discovery. you must show at onset of suit the irreparable damages, if you wait you are conceding damages can be resolved with money damages after trial.
the reason amrn did not ask for preliminary injunction was smart: judges seldom grant them. don't want to lose the motion for preliminary inj. b/c also shows unlikely to succeed in suit (one of pre-injun, condition), judge Andres wrote against granting such injunctions, must post bond, AND NO NEED TO, SINCE TEVA CASE HIKMA
WILL SLOW DOWN THEIR LAUNCH ANYWAY.
8
I called him out (now he's hiding)--but posters know charts are nonsense. yet if you read the responses to bb's posts--posters are "shocked" why jt gave the extension, and some are jumping for joy b/c bb says the extensions must be a sign of settlement.
bb must stop explaining law issues, at least court orders.
anyway--I will not undue his nonsense anymore---the brilliant law educated moderators will take care of bb's falsities.
8
jas-he is misleading every poster here--I don't care if he started ihub--posters deserve better. You can follow him and his conspiracies, I won't. Next time he comments on a court order--I an moving on.
8
mr-I think other g. will do same--make a slow launch, will small amount of scripts not to go over the marine indication by much, so to limit the damages, but still keep their name in the market not to to compete with Hikma.
8
posters-do yourselves a favor-do NOT LISTEN TO BB--OF COURSE HIKMA WILL ANSWER THE COMPLAINT---they are not avoiding the answer--just need more than 21 days to answer complicated issues during holidays.
Do not listen to false promises of "settlement talk must be going on--it could be but not b/c of extensions granted.
I think the law and facts (the press conferences showed inducement) but Hikma will have defenses to the suit.
The moderators allow every non lawyer to speculate and make up inferences that are untrue--it is sad. Nothing against bb personally but he lacks the knowledge to make these outrageous statements and give false hope t investors will a lot of money on line.
Moderators: AGAIN, please reconsider you position and stop posters from interpreting court ORDERS. At least limiting opinions of court ORDERS will give some relief from false info.
My last request, if BB is still allowed to comment on court orders, the next time he does I will be leaving for good this time--I will not be part of such ignorance.
8
lou--each firm has a speciality. Previous firm, must have been for invalidity of patents, and new firm specialty in infringement issues. That is it. no conspiracy here.
8
personally I think they will slow considerably to avoid damages--but still keep their name in the market not to concede to amrn.
we will see in scripts this week.
8
ralp-stop being lead by BB. every D. gets extensions to answer (read my previous post) the complaint --21 days is nothing--read my previous post
Q: why does this intelligent board follow BB in law issues which he has 0 knowledge???
This is more starling than giving hikma more time to answer--which the court would have given them 100%.
8
Marz-it's STANDARD PROCEDURE to CONSENT for defendants more time to answer the complaint. If the plaintiff does not consent it makes them look bad and the court will grant it ANYWAY. This case is complicated and it is the holidays for many, so the court would 100% grant the defendants the extension.
So no JT is not crazy, his lawyers correctly advised him to be smart.
In any event, defendants could have made a motion to dismiss within their 21 days to answer, which tolls their 21 day deadline until after the motion is over.
So this extension means NOTHING!!! no settlement or anything.
law 101
8
duke-thanks
jas-just profit taking for those who bought in low 4's--let's not use the charts after the fact, it is pointless.
8
what is LooQ?
todd-the ruling isn't this month. read previous posts about it,
8
Reason sp Up today: P.R. from AMRN: Amarin Corporation plc
Mon, December 7, 2020, 4:00 AM PST
Amarin-Supported Research and Analyses from Academic Collaborators to Be Featured in Two Late Breaker and Six e-Poster Presentations, Including Encore of REDUCE-IT® EPA, Primary Results of the VASCEPA COVID-19 CardioLink-9 Trial, and Mechanism of Action Insights
DUBLIN, Ireland and BRIDGEWATER, N.J., Dec. 07, 2020 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Amarin Corporation plc (NASDAQ:AMRN) today announced that scientific findings that add to the growing body of knowledge on VASCEPA® (icosapent ethyl) will be presented during the National Lipid Association (NLA) Scientific Sessions 2020, being held virtually from December 10 – 12, 2020. These findings will be featured in two Late Breaker and six e-Poster presentations from a variety of academic collaborators based on research or analyses supported by Amarin.
“We are pleased to support several Late Breaker and numerous e-Poster presentations at the upcoming NLA Scientific Sessions 2020,” said Steven Ketchum, Ph.D., senior vice president and president, research & development and chief scientific officer, Amarin. “We continue to showcase data from our REDUCE-IT® study demonstrating the unique and proven efficacy of VASCEPA in cardiovascular risk reduction while providing support to investigators to explore other ways in which VASCEPA can potentially impact public health.”
Amarin added that the Late Breaker presentation of the VASCEPA COVID-19 CardioLink-9 Randomized Trial is of primary results from a trial supported by Amarin and HLS Therapeutics, Inc. that was conducted by independent investigators.
Featured Amarin-supported Late Breakers to be presented:
“EPA Levels and Cardiovascular Outcomes in the Reduction of Cardiovascular Events with Icosapent Ethyl–Intervention Trial” – presented on behalf of all authors by Michael Miller, M.D., University of Maryland Medical System, Baltimore, MD – December 12, 4:30-5:15 pm CST
“First Human Trial of a Loading Dose of Icosapent Ethyl in Patients with COVID-19: Primary Results of the VASCEPA COVID-19 CardioLink-9 Randomized Trial” – presented on behalf of all authors by Deepak L. Bhatt, M.D., M.P.H., Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Harvard Medical School, Boston, MA – December 12, 4:30-5:15 pm CST
8
do you know Ci's reasoning for the sp change ?
8
NS-patients lower trigs to avoid strokes and other ailments as well.
Singer did make HK's argument--I wish it would be true.
8
HK-not true. vascepa has 2 indications: 1. in patients w/ over 500 trigs to lower the trigs-not necessarily to prevent CVA--just to lower many riSKS involved w/ high trigs, stroke, etc).
2. Another indication to lower cvd risk.
dr, can prescribe vascepa for over 500 trig patient just for sake of lowering trigs, in it of itself, to lower stroke disease, like other meds such as niacin, which does not give benefit of overall lowering cvd risk in of itself just lowers trigs.
The reason why amrn argues infringement is b/c hickma eliminated the label restriction (the pre reduce it label--that vascepa's effect on cva is unknown), thus it induces (but not infringement per se) drs. to prescribe vascepa for all cardiac patients (over 500 and under 500) to take vascepa to REDUCE CVD.
8
tke-court MUST grant trial by jury-if "request" made within time requirement.
8
Another case J. Andrews DENIES defendant's motion to dismiss and grants plaintiff's motion to amend complaint.(non infringement case)
link: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=5482462593161531239&q=judge+Richard+Andrews&hl=en&as_sdt=4,8,139
8
ns-zilch. only if the panel thereafter overturns the ruling does it affect our case.
8
Venue: J. Andrews: "Under Third Circuit law, considerable deference is given to the plaintiffs' choice of forum."
"Plaintiff has chosen Delaware as a forum. That choice weighs strongly in the plaintiff's favor, although not as strongly as it would if the plaintiff had its principal place of business (or, indeed, any place of business) in Delaware"
link: https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=11984067529844635053&q=judge+Richard+Andrews&hl=en&as_sdt=4,8,139
raf-again-per markman: "That means that when Amarin filed its recent suit against Hikma on November 30, Nevada was most likely not even a legal option. Motions to transfer typically fail if the plaintiff could not have legally filed in the requested district."
I don't understand your reply. Markman clearly states the motion to transfer to Nevada will fail.
8
Sept. 2020 case!! Takeda Defeats Motion to Dismiss Patent and Contract Claims!
On September 9, 2020, Judge Richard G. Andrews of the United States District Court for the District of Delaware ruled in favor of Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. in the case Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc. v. Mylan Pharmaceuticals Inc. (No. 1:19-cv-02216-RGA). Takeda’s complaint asserts breach of contract, alleging that Mylan’s launch and sale of its generic colchicine product is in breach of a settlement and license agreement that the parties entered into to settle an earlier Hatch-Waxman litigation, and also asserts that Mylan’s activities constitute infringement of Takeda’s patents. Mylan filed a motion to dismiss Takeda’s complaint, which Takeda opposed on a variety of grounds. Judge Andrews denied Mylan’s motion to dismiss, clearing the way for the case to proceed to discovery.
Takeda was represented by Haug Partners attorneys Edgar H. Haug, Porter F. Fleming, Jonathan A. Herstoff, and Camille Y. Turner.
link: https://www.jdsupra.com/legalnews/takeda-defeats-motion-to-dismiss-patent-22766/
8
By a 96-0 vote Judge Andrews was confirmed in the Senate on November 3, 2011.
If he was a liberal anti business/patent judge he would not receive EVEY single republican vote.
I don't see why you are all flipping out.
8
if you read the complaint the evidence is strong--especially march press release--no way motion to dismiss granted.
Nevada is not a realistic venue per markman.
8
raf--judge has limited role in jury case. only disputed evidence is an important judge issue. From reading the complaint the exhibits seem not in dispute.
8
duke-it is exhibit L of the complaint--ask ir for a copy.
8
duke-it is exhibit L of the complaint--ask ir for a copy.
8
hay-this is amrn strongest proof of infringement: p. 23 of complaint
Hikma’s March 2020 Press Release communicates to and instructs healthcare providers and patients that Hikma’s “generic version” of VASCEPA® should be used for all the same indications as VASCEPA®, including to reduce the risk of CV events per the CV Indication awarded to VASCEPA®, and thus promotes and encourages that use.
***The fact tht amrn itself didn't bring up the volume issue is the reason markman did not.
8
Hay-what is "the volume angle" ?
8
ns-you are correct-generics will have same issue with cardio labeling as Hikma had. Good point.
8
NS-Hikma was in a hard spot with regard to the limitation.
Because if Hikma kept the label restriction, which states that vascepa's effect on certain cardiovascular events for patients with severe hypertriglyceridemia had not been studied, it would open to liability for false disclosure and potentially other liability.
If it removed the label restriction, then it would be evidence of infringement inducement.
I think their lawyers were correct to pick the best of 2 evils. Because being guilty of induced infringement is better that false disclosure.
(2) I think other generics will think twice to launch b/c they see they cannot promote vascepa for cardiac indication and that makes it less worthwhile. Yt, there may be some generics that will say "we will launch smarter..."
8
marj-I think he meant if amrn "loses" the underlying case, not that if amrn is granted a preliminary injunction it loses.
In any event you answered his ultimate question, that if AMRN wins the pre-injunction and the "loses" the case , amrn IS responsible for Hikma's damages.
8
zip-jury cannot split. They must come with unanimous verdict. If they cannot after many attempts and the judge's pressure-then a hung jury is declared and a new trial is commenced with a new jury.
8
marz-the case doesn't get easier to prove even if 70% goes to Hikma, b/c amrn still needs to prove "intent" to induce which is based on promotion (press releases in the complaint already) and imo, if the marine is insubstantial compared to reduce it (which amrn did not mention on complaint).
The only help if 70% moves to Hikma is to get the injunction of irreparable harm--which is still hard to get b/c court could say you will get damages if inducement is proved.
So I would prefer next scripts to show generics are leaving--and not need the injunction, and then win the inducement case.
8
gotcha-take bb with a grain of salt...
8
hey-you leave out, hikma's down last 3 days-from $2634 to $2481, and today is bouncing back.
8
down-thx for the story. I would take the positive from the story, that even though that one juror was a pain in the neck--he also does not want to sit there forever--and after two days came around as he knew he was outnumbered.
We have a much better chance with a jury b/c most people are reasonable and even if you get ine rotten apple he will falll off the tree--unlike if you get one rotten judge you don't have 11 other good apples to knock her down.
8
raf-in general you're correct, civil cases range from 6 to 12 jurors (the actual jury pool is much larger--6 are picked from pool), and must be unanimous (in state cases parties can stipulate for 5/6--not federal).
However, my understanding is that Delaware follows common law and MUST have 12 and like all federal cases MUST be unanimous.
sorry for delay.
8