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.
Because every Secondary Consideration claim now has a broad range of interpretation thanks to Novo! They just assume the Secondary Consideration fight is getting old!
They didn't understand his comments about Mori and how it was flawed info that ultimately effected the Secondary Considerations!
If Mori was interpreted properly the SCs would have had more weight!
It's NOT about the secondary considerations!
Singer kept saying over and over that Mori (BAD evidence) "Bled-over" to the weighing of the secondary considerations! (Meaning the Secondary Considerations would take on a whole new meaning if Mori was recognized as flawed!) They kept asking about the Secondary Considerations and they kept saying: Explain what you mean about bleeding over!!!!!! He couldn't get them to understand that Mori was flawed!
If he said: Novo allows "But/If" information meaning: Your Honor: The Secondary Considerations would have been ok BUT/IF Mori wasn't intentionally chopped!!!
I don't think anyone gets it!
The secondary consideration issue got us to the dance-floor!
To make it clearer: Please read my posting #296183 in full...
He kept saying over and over and over: Do not miss my point about the Mori Evidence which Du based her case on that was not accurate.
They weren't hearing him YET the Appeals Judges for Novo did! Didn't Novo make it to the US Supreme Court?? They heard it too!
This Precedent Setting Case clearly states that they would have viewed the Secondary Considerations differently if they had Evidence that was intentionally abused...
THAT IS THE DOOR TO A SUCCESSFUL APPEAL YET SINGER DIDN'T USE THE NOVO REFERNCE! THEY ASKED: GIVE US SOMETHING!
They didn't hear him YET had he referenced Novo (see my posting - the Novo reference is there), they would have gotten it!
Because they ONLY focused on the Secondary Considerations, they failed to review the Appeal as a whole!
En Banc could work if he just shoves the Novo reference down their throat!
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=158104831
En Banc:
6 out of 6 is also comforting...
Yesterday's article...
http://www.metnews.com/articles/2020/cano090320.htm
Read the last line of each of these:
https://www.ca9.uscourts.gov/enbanc/
Several still out for final decision
Several Overturned
A couple affirmed
Feeling a little better about an En Banc review...
INTERESTING: NCLA Earns En Banc Review from 10th Circuit in Bump Stock Ban Case, Including on Chevron Issues
5:10 pm Article from today...
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/09/04/2089312/0/en/NCLA-Earns-En-Banc-Review-from-10th-Circuit-in-Bump-Stock-Ban-Case-Including-on-Chevron-Issues.html
And will they burn thru cash before they can generate enough money to BUILD those markets full-out that are already there!
And if they do will they run out of cash and sell at a fire-sale price?!?
Is 500 million enough to build a World Market???
With restricted or break-even cash flow from the US Market?
The US Market was their bread n butter.
It's like starting all over...
I first invested at 7.00. Its jumped to 20.00. Then back down to .56 cents. Then to 10.00. Then 26.00. Then to 18.00. Then to 4.00. Then to 8.00. Then to 4.25 where it sits today!
Why so much drama and complete lack of stability?
Why? Because it all starts at the Top!
BIO: Interesting... When I use Google Maps and plug in the Dublin address from Amarins NJ website, it comes up with a collaborative office rental space. It also has the following web link.
https://www.spacesworks.com/dublin/south-docklands/?utm_source%3Dyext_places_gmb%26utm_medium%3Dplaces%26utm_campaign%3Dyext_traffic%26utm_content%3D4695
Scroll to the bottom and you'll see the address match!
Maybe it is just a rented cubicle for tax purposes!?!
No one to fire JT??
BIO-BILL: Have you ever reached out to any of JTs bosses in Ireland to share your thoughts with them? Or is it just an "Empty Office" for Tax purposes?
Who is actually sitting there across the pond watching him thinking: "OK, let him go! He'll fix this! Hey, it's time to write JT another mill of Stock Options before we lose Europe!"
Man - I'm giving myself a sick headache because I feel it's so possible!
Why don't the bosses in Ireland ever surface anywhere?
Who are they and why don't we ever hear anything from them?
Who fires the Bosses in the US? The guys JT is making sure get Stock Options as well??? Uhhh... I think not!
Has anyone from Amarin USA ever been fired?
Original CEOs have stepped down (I've been invested since 2006...)
Just a thought:
Now that they know they basically 'lost the US Market', they should sell to a very large European based Big-Pharma who can run this thing to the moon, one who understands all of the ins and outs of every other country as well...
To "hire a dude" to build a World Dominating market is just as bad as thinking we can hire a Lawfirm to win a Patent Lawsuit especially when you have EVERYTHING at your fingertips!
He's right about the Strength of our Patents YET he was 100% wrong with the selection of the original Lawfirm!
Our Patents are 100% lock solid! Its the Doosh Attorney Team who fumbled the ball and gave it away with "bad evidence!"
(I WANT ANYONE TO TELL ME THIS WAS 100% OBVIOUS AND AMARIN KNEW IT - IF NOT, OUR PATENTS ARE 100% ROCK SOLID YET WE JUST HANDED THEM AND BILLIONS OF DOLLARS OF REVENUE TO THE GENERICS BECAUSE JT AND HIS TEAM HIRED THE "B" LAWFIRM!)
(If Architects have to pay for "Errors and Omissions Insurance" to cover mistakes they make, don't Lawfirms that completely F-up a simple case like this???)
If he tripped over his own feet there, why would we believe he is capable of selecting the "right dude" to create a World Dominating Market for Vascepa?...
...when Big-European-Pharma already exists!??
The bosses in Ireland need to hear from BioBill!
Talking to JT is like talking to the enemy (we'll fix this - just hold on!) This Lawfirm choice was a multi-billion-dollar mistake!
How are they letting him continue to steer this bus??
And why is Amarin so arrogant to think they can build a World Dominating Market?
Bio: Open a dialog with Ireland or is that just an empty office for Tax purposes only and there is no one above JT?
Wouldn't that be scary!?!
I think he was trying to avoid making the cruxt of the case a "new or corrected evidence submission". I think he wanted to back into it using the SC argument.
Email sent to Singer + Elisabeth (Amarin HR) this morning (I know it's a long-shot):
Elisabeth,
(Please forward to your Legal Team as well)...
The Appeals Judges asked Jonathan Singer to provide something they could use relative to the Novo case.
He tried very hard. No one argues that...
I read the Novo closing comments from the Novo Appeals Judge and I think we missed a chance on Wednesday that Jonathan tried to drive home to them (the bad Mori evidence.)
Below I pointed out to a friend where Jonathan may have been able to open a door for the Appeals Judges to grab onto…
(Not sure if it may weigh in the upcoming appeal to the Appeals Court.)
I am sure Jonathan is NOT HAPPY that they ignored the Mori problem (which is what Du primarily based her decision on) yet if you read below, maybe there is still a slim chance of getting Mori reviewed by pointing out what we all know to be the "red herring" in our loss (Mori)…
Please note that I am NOT an Attorney yet did take 2 or 3 Law classes at Drexel University and enjoyed them very much...
My comments to a friend:
There is a potential path that was mentioned in Novo's closing Summary by the Appealant Judge that said and/or implied had "bad" evidence been used that was intentionally compromised or used in favor of good evidence to bolster the Defendants case, a "But/For" review could have occurred.
Novo's Attorneys pointed out a problem with evidence that they felt compromised the Trial.
IN NOVO, THE JUDGES REVIEWED THE BAD EVIDENCE AND IMPLIED BAD EVIDENCE COULD HAVE CHANGED THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE..
In Novo: The Judge said in closing that the issue with the "bad" evidence (pointed out by Novo in their Appeal) was not enough to change the Obviousness determination YET it certainly would have in ours! Had Jonathan noted this and expressed it when asked how our case mirrored or did not mirror Novo, he could have said it was very similar (they knew it was) YET "BUT/FOR" the bad evidence introduced by the Defendants, this case would have had a different outcome as discussed in the Novo closing summary.
This potentially would have given our Judges something to grab on to (a pathway) seeing it was allowed and/or discussed in Novo.
(Dyke or Reyes said: There are cases already out there that we have to follow such as Novo. They wanted something to grasp.)
I know Jonathan hoped they would review Mori with (probably) the understanding that the Judges did not have to or maybe aren't allowed to review evidence in an Appeals case - yet the Summary in Novo apparently allows it... And his main point was "the bad evidence" effected the "weighing of the secondary considerations"...
I and everyone else heard him loud and clear!
(Maybe Amarin can use this in their upcoming appeal...)
THIS IS A "COPY and PASTE" RIGHT FROM THE NOVO APPEALS' CLOSING COMMENTS BY THE JUDGE:
START:
"Dr. Sturis was accused of failing to notify the PTO that the original test plan did not include his data calculations at 120 minutes. The Federal Circuit found it to be a nonmaterial omission because it did not qualify as “but-for” material. The Court explained that this was not a case in which adverse results were hidden in favor of more positive data, nor did the omission undermine the opinion stated in the declaration."
END
In our case the "cropped document showing Adverse Results" certainly undermined our case!
I apologize if my interpretation of any or all of this is off-base yet it doesn't appear so...
Hope this helps!
JASBG: Read my post #296138.
You might find it interesting...
The En Banc Appeal to all of the Judges...
I sent this to Elisabeth (Amarin PR) and Jonathan Singer:
Elisabeth,
(Please forward to your Legal Team as well)...
The Appeals Judges asked Jonathan Singer to provide something they could use relative to the Novo case.
He tried very hard. No one argues that...
I read the Novo closing comments from the Novo Appeals Judge and I think we missed a chance on Wednesday that Jonathan tried to drive home to them (the bad Mori evidence.)
Below I pointed out to a friend where Jonathan may have been able to open a door for the Appeals Judges to grab onto…
(Not sure if it may weigh in the upcoming appeal to the Appeals Court.)
I am sure Jonathan is NOT HAPPY that they ignored the Mori problem (which is what Du primarily based her decision on) yet if you read below, maybe there is still a slim chance of getting Mori reviewed by pointing out what we all know to be the "red herring" in our loss (Mori)…
Please note that I am NOT an Attorney yet did take 2 or 3 Law classes at Drexel University and enjoyed them very much...
My comments to a friend:
There is a potential path that was mentioned in Novo's closing Summary by the Appealant Judge that said and/or implied had "bad" evidence been used that was intentionally compromised or used in favor of good evidence to bolster the Defendants case, a "But/For" review could have occurred.
Novo's Attorneys pointed out a problem with evidence that they felt compromised the Trial.
IN NOVO, THE JUDGES REVIEWED THE BAD EVIDENCE AND IMPLIED BAD EVIDENCE COULD HAVE CHANGED THE OUTCOME OF THE CASE..
In Novo: The Judge said in closing that the issue with the "bad" evidence (pointed out by Novo in their Appeal) was not enough to change the Obviousness determination YET it certainly would have in ours! Had Jonathan noted this and expressed it when asked how our case mirrored or did not mirror Novo, he could have said it was very similar (they knew it was) YET "BUT/FOR" the bad evidence introduced by the Defendants, this case would have had a different outcome as discussed in the Novo closing summary.
This potentially would have given our Judges something to grab on to (a pathway) seeing it was allowed and/or discussed in Novo.
(Dyke or Reyes said: There are cases already out there that we have to follow such as Novo. They wanted something to grasp.)
I know Jonathan hoped they would review Mori with (probably) the understanding that the Judges did not have to or maybe aren't allowed to review evidence in an Appeals case - yet the Summary in Novo apparently allows it... And his main point was "the bad evidence" effected the "weighing of the secondary considerations"...
I and everyone else heard him loud and clear!
(Maybe Amarin can use this in their upcoming appeal...)
THIS IS A "COPY and PASTE" RIGHT FROM THE NOVO APPEALS' CLOSING COMMENTS BY THE JUDGE:
START:
"Dr. Sturis was accused of failing to notify the PTO that the original test plan did not include his data calculations at 120 minutes. The Federal Circuit found it to be a nonmaterial omission because it did not qualify as “but-for” material. The Court explained that this was not a case in which adverse results were hidden in favor of more positive data, nor did the omission undermine the opinion stated in the declaration."
END
In our case the "cropped document showing Adverse Results" certainly undermined our case!
I apologize if my interpretation of any or all of this is off-base yet it doesn't appear so...
Hope this helps!
John King
100% BLAME: Amarin's 1st Legal Team for completely botching the Mori Evidence...
Pre-Trial, Trial, and Post Trial Briefs! 3x's they let Mori go on by.
Can't blame Due: She decided primarily on Mori.
Can't blame Singer: He cannot introduce old or new evidence and Novo (case Precedent) allowed SC's in 'out of order'.
Cant blame the Appealant Judges: They can't allow new or old evidence and Novo (case Precedent) allowed SC's 'out of order'...
Amarin's 1st Legal Team completely dropped the ball 100%.
Even the Generics Lawyer said in his OA in closing (in similar words): They just want to go back and look at old evidence that even their legal team let in and didn't challenge!
On a whole separate note:
It is just unbelievable to me that once the 1st trial is done, you cannot go back and reverse a case on Appeal with corrected evidence that was intentionally edited to favor the Defendants.
I've said a few times there is a potential path that was mentioned in Novos closing Summary by the Appealant Judges that said had (bad) evidence been used that was intentionally compromised or used in favor of correct evidence, a "But/For" review could have occurred. Novo (who like Amarin lost) pointed out a problem with evidence that they felt compromised the Trial. (Their appeal was also based on the mishandled SC's.) THE JUDGES REVIEWED THE BAD EVIDENCE!!! The Judges said in closing that the issue with the evidence was not enough to change the Obviousness determination YET it certainly would have in ours! Had Singer noted this and expressed it when asked how our case mirrored or did not mirror Novo, he could have said it was similar YET "BUT/FOR" the bad evidence introduced by the Defendants, this case would have been different. In Novo, the Judges said there was no bad evidence that would have changed the outcome! This potentially would have given our Judges something to grab on to seeing it was allowed in Novo. Dyke or Reyes said: There are cases already out there that we have to follow (such as Novo that I believe made it to the US Supreme Court of Appeals which is why they used it as the backbone of their decision - it set a Precedent regarding how SC's no matter how they are viewed must be strong enough to over-take an Obviousness decision - unless you have "But/For" evidence that they implied would have been considered in Novo.) Singer "hoped" they would review it with the understanding that the Judges did not have to or maybe aren't allowed to in an Appeals case - yet the Summary in Novo appears to allow it... (Maybe Amarin can use this in their upcoming appeal...)
Back to our 1st Legal Team:
How could they have not challenged and beat the daylights out of every single shred of evidence that the Generics threw out??? We're they sleeping that day when Mori was presented? Pre-trial, Trial, and Post Trial??? Yet cropped evidence made it thru unchallenged???
Where did it all start!?!
That is 100% where we lost the case!
Billions and Billion lost over mis-handled evidence by our legal team in the original trial!
An article today said the Judges can reject the request if they feel the decision was appropriate.
It also said getting it approved for review let alone considered for reversal is extremely low!
That's probably why JT focused more on the International Market!
AMARIN PRESS RELEASE:
Amarin Provides Update Following Ruling in VASCEPA® ANDA Patent Litigation Nasdaq:AMRN
http://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2020/09/03/2088633/0/en/Amarin-Provides-Update-Following-Ruling-in-VASCEPA-ANDA-Patent-Litigation.html
CMM3RD - Same Question for you:
In the Novo case in the Closing Summary, it noted that had their been Evidence submitted that was intentionally altered in effect (see the quote below) the case would qualify as a "but/for" case meaning it would open the door for a review of the BAD evidence in question if that evidence was used to sway the Trial Judges opinion.
That to me is exactly what Singer is doing... He is forcing the Judges hands to reconsider the evidence.
How will the Appeals Judges respond to evidence used that was altered and clearly incorrect that was a major piece used to decide the case?
I've been saying that the misuse of the SCs opened the door requiring the Judges to review the (bad) evidence - Singer is tying one to the other (bleed over I believe is the term he used.) It appears that they do have to comment on it at this point.
Do you agree?
Quote from Summary of Novo:
"Dr. Sturis was accused of failing to notify the PTO that the original test plan did not include his data calculations at 120 minutes. The Federal Circuit found it to be a nonmaterial omission because it did not qualify as “but-for” material. The Court explained that this was not a case in which adverse results were hidden in favor of more positive data, nor did the omission undermine the opinion stated in the declaration."
louieblouie - Question for you:
In the Novo case in the Closing Summary, it noted that had their been Evidence submitted that was intentionally altered (in effect - see the quote below) the case would qualify as a "but/for" case meaning it would open the door for a review of the BAD evidence in question if that evidence was used to sway the Trial Judges opinion.
That to me is exactly what Singer is doing... He is forcing the Judges hands to reconsider the evidence.
How will the Appeals Judges respond to evidence used that was altered and clearly incorrect that was a major piece used to decide the case?
I've been saying that the misuse of the SCs opened the door requiring the Judges to review the (bad) evidence - Singer is tying one to the other (bleed over I believe is the term he used.) It appears that they do have to comment on it at this point.
Do you agree?
Quote from Summary of Novo:
"Dr. Sturis was accused of failing to notify the PTO that the original test plan did not include his data calculations at 120 minutes. The Federal Circuit found it to be a nonmaterial omission because it did not qualify as “but-for” material. The Court explained that this was not a case in which adverse results were hidden in favor of more positive data, nor did the omission undermine the opinion stated in the declaration."
Well said!
I'm going to stop posting here and just read your Posts from now on!
You have my Vote!
My thought/conclusion this afternoon sides with your Position.
Anything short of a Remand will open the door for either side to Appeal and that is what Appeals Judges (or any Judge for that matter) want to avoid at any cost!
Dyke just had a decision of his overturned this past Monday by his own Team!
No questions by the other (2) is very unusual yet so is a Remand - they go hand-in-hand (which is hopefully their plan and hopefully why they were silent!)
REMAND: I went back and re-read all of the Marksman reviews from March thru July. (I found it extremely intriguing and irritating how accurately they posed the Pros and Cons for each Amarin and the Generics relative to how today played out!)
All Marksman: https://www.markmanadvisors.com/blog/tag/Amarin
One comment they made regarding the Amarin/Singer Appeal Brief... (I'll interpret and post the exact comment when I can find it):
They liked how Singer tossed Du under the bus saying she handled the SC's incorrectly. They liked how Singer pointed out how the evidence presented by the Generics was incorrect.
Marksman said Singer "tied the hands of the Judges" noting this was a "Genius" move because he forced the Appeals Judges to either: Go against Case Law and say "Du made mistakes but we are going to ignore them" and (incorrectly) find for the Generics and risk an Appeal by Amarin to the US Supreme Court OR "We will Overturn the case and find for Amarin" yet have the Generics argue that they Won the Prima Facie case (and the SC's didn't matter) and thus risk an Appeal by the Generics to the US Supreme Court.
(This is not 100% accurate yet the cruxt of what they were saying...)
The article said Singer left an easy out for the Appeals Judges: If you are not going to find in favor of Amarin, take the easy path out and Remand it back to the Trial Judge to correct the mistakes or risk an Appeal from either side!
In effect Amarin doesn't lose on the case being Overturned OR Remanded - both are "Wins" for Amarin in Singer's eyes!
I agree with another Poster here who said the first (2) Judges probably stayed quiet because they already made up their minds: Probably not for either side (thus the 'no question position')...
Everyone knows the 'no question' premis is extremely rare (and it certainly is) YET then again so is seeing a case Remanded back to the Trial Judge!
2 - 1 to REMAND!
Singer noted over and over again that the Evidence was flawed - he didn't fail at making that point. They didn't challenge it (good thing? I think so - nothing to argue there?). Today Doesn't mean it will not be considered in the decision. It has to be considered. It has nothing to do with SCs. If all of the Judges feel the Evidence was flawed, the SC's cannot be the deciding factor - we learned that today yet unfortunately that's all we learned. Technically the SCs mean nothing if the evidence was wrong. Case should be based on the bad evidence. Again the handling of the SCs is what got us in the Appeals door! I think Dyke didn't like that!
And I believe Hughs is Pro-Patent!
Which is not good!
Our case is NOT about SCs alone!
That just got us in the door!
If they rule against our Arguments on the bad evidence, I'll have ZERO hope permanently with our Judicial System!
Looking for Amarin or Singer feedback! Hoping we get similar feedback to my points!
Part of our case mirrors the Novo case relative to both Trial Judges "deciding the cases out of order" which is Appealable.
That go us in the door!
Novo is the case the one Judge referenced today - Singer had to expect that.
In the Novo case, the Appeals Judges found in favor of the Generics saying the Secondary Considerations did not change the Obviousness of the Patent.
YET they added in writing in their Conclusion that if the evidence used by the Generics was flawed or in error, they would have a different case.
Novo had only one issue with the evidence yet their Judges said it was not enough to change the outcome of their case!
Singer got us into this Appeal using the fact our Judge (as well) decided the case out of order YET he kept pushing the Flawed Evidence we have Du used - BECAUSE THAT'S WHERE OUR CASE LIES!
So I believe our Judges MUST consider it in their Conclusion which I am sure Singer (and everyone on this Board) feels is the real cruxt of our case!
They must review it and comment on it!
They should find its enough to minimally Remand it back for review.
Our case is weak based on Novo IF we just consider how it was "decided out of order!" Case precedent (Novo) says "deciding out of order is no big deal UNLESS you have more to offer" as we do!
Its not over!
EVERYONE: READ THE VERY LAST PARAGRAPH IN THIS LINK RELATIVE TO THE NOVO CASE:
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.natlawreview.com/article/obvious-to-try-and-prima-facie-obviousness-patent-infringement-case-novo-nordisk-v-c%3famp
BIO: Take a look at (2) of my previous Posts (see below) on the Novo case and let me know your thoughts!
I like your optimism:
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=157702124
https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=157689137
I believe the other (2) Judges understand the point Singer kept pushing: The evidence was flawed! I think that is why they didn't ask any questions! His briefs were crystal clear... Based on Novo, the Judges said in their Conclusion (bold in my Post) that if evidence was flawed, it would have neen a different outcome!
In the Novo case they found in favor of the Generics BECAUSE there was "no bad evidence". The Judges said had Novo provided info that the evidence was flawed or intentionally omitted, Novo would have a case (like ours!)
We can only hope that the other 2 Judges see the "Flawed Info" and already feel Singer has a case.
His Written Briefs may be Strong Enough to find in our favor!
Just because they didn't ask questions doesn't mean we don't have a strong case!
They only asked questions on how the case was determined "out of order". The "flawed info" is where Singer kept redirecting the Judges today!
We can only hope!
Novo Case: I recall listening to it. I believe it mirrored our: Case decision and SC's handled out of order yet they found that the SCs really had no bearing on the decision finding it Obvious.
The only HOPE is in that case the Judges CLEARLY said the case (not SCs) was NOT based on "flawed evidence" where ours was!
In Singers written and oral Briefs he kept saying the info was flawed!
One of my previous posts on Novo:
"Dr. Sturis was accused of failing to notify the PTO that the original test plan did not include his data calculations at 120 minutes. The Federal Circuit found it to be a nonmaterial omission because it did not qualify as “but-for” material. The Court explained that this was not a case in which adverse results were hidden in favor of more positive data, nor did the omission undermine the opinion stated in the declaration."
In short - the Judges should go back to first make sure the determination that the Patent was deemed Obvious was not a flawed decision (as they did with the Novo decision) then they review the SC's to see if they were properly applied...
Singer will fight the decision that found the Patent obvious because the Generic's Cropped the data to bolster their position on a document they used to help their case... ADVERSE RESULTS WERE HIDDEN and IT UNDERMINED THE DECISION BY THE JUDGE AND WAS (most likely) INTENTIONAL!
We are on!
They are probably happy that they only have to listen to 2 cases! Wonder if our case had any bearing on that and it being in the 2nd and last position!?! A good sign (?) unless they get hungry and want lunch and end early! That would be our luck!
If Bloomberg is right:
I'm not worried. 2 of 3 Judges, best Appeals Attorney, and a Strong Case!
Stay Positive!
Can you get into the Conference Call after 945 or even after 1000 am?
HUGHS Good (near the top), Dyk + Renya Not so good for us!
HUGHS Good (near the top), Dyk + Renya Not so good for us!
Did the walls of their arteries get wider meaning open up more than they were before they started the trial and is there information showing the starting thickness and how much they opened up following the trial?
(Just dummying down to layman's terms.)
I honestly would like to hear it explained like this...
This is what I believe everyone wants to believe happened.
I am not saying it didn't. I just (as a non-scientist) cannot decipher this occurred.
I'm asking...
I do like Amarin's PR from 430 pm today:
"VASCEPA is the first and only agent studied on top of statin therapy reported to exhibit coronary plaque regression in hypertriglyceridemic patients"
I hope so!
"Regression" is an interchangeable word.
Relative to the "act of plaque increasing", it is a regression (PULL BACK - NOT REMOVING) of 17% based on the placebo.
The first sentence tells it all...
I hope I'm wrong yet probably not...
Upcoming Oral Arguments | US Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
http://cafc.uscourts.gov/argument/upcoming-oral-arguments
Panel "F" is correct! Just saw the CAC chart...
Im not sure which! Not sure when that gets assigned.