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.
Marjac—what is the three sentence elevator speech version of the fraud that was committed on the court? It seems to me if it can be distilled down to this, the chances of getting some traction are improved. If not, it does not mean it’s impossible, but it does make it much harder. There must be something that truly offends the court.
B
W—it will be months maybe year or two before the litigation comes to a conclusion absent a loss on the motion to dismiss (really bad but unlikely) or a settlement (should be good but also seems unlikely). We are at least a year away from summary judgment motions, but those may not even be filed because of factual disputes about Hikmas conduct. A trial is at least a year from now.
Any buyer will simply step into the shoes of AMRN and pursue the case to protect as much of the US market as possible. A big variable in the BO price will be how much of the US market can be protected. I think the addition of HealthNet now was designed to bolster AMRN’s legal case but also its case to buyers that the US market is not lost.
B
Motions to dismiss are rarely granted, statistically less than 10%. Has to almost be a completely BS complaint, which this is not. Not a reason to worry at this stage.
MP—the timing of this is to send a message to the others out there in the same position as the first two defendants. You play the same old game, you get sued. AMRN can keep adding defendants in the early stages of the case. It’s not really about recovering damages, it’s deterrence. But the damages won’t hurt if this has to go all the way to trial, which is not likely to happen.
A
MP—agree completely that nothing is ever a sure thing except death and taxes. The reason AMRN did not seek an injunction is because courts do not grant injunctions if the plaintiff can be compensated adequately by money damages, which is the primary remedy for patent infringement.
A
JB—quick question to you or the board. Is CHMP approval like an AdCom approval that means the regulatory agency is 99% likely to approve, or is if not, what is the difference in EU approval process. Trying to understand how conclusive the CHMP approval will be.
Thanks
B
It was a badly tried case which is why there was a summary affirmance. The Supreme Court would never take such a case. They only accept something like 1% of cases where a petition to appeal is filed. Way past time to move on from this case, IMO.
B
Because they assess they are likely to lose.
Z—seems like the crowd is recognizing how much of a huge long shot this is. The question no one has ever answered is why Amarin would not file this motion if it had merit. If there were good grounds for this, it would be malpractice for existing counsel not to pursue it. I’m certainly not criticizing the effort by those involved or the spirit behind the motion, but I won’t put my money on it.
A
B—his legal team is very good . They bested the AMRN lawyers in the NV case and FC appeal. They also filed a strong motion to dismiss in the new infringement case. I think it will be denied, but the Winston & Strawn team is good. It not about brawn, it’s about brains.
A
A
RAF—as I read the order, she will have the case until summary judgment motions if filed. SJ motions would be dispositive, so the district judge would handle them, although the magistrate could make a recommended ruling, which are often followed.
Trial judges make all decisions on trial evidence and procedure, but don’t decide the merits. They also are there to make sure juries don’t go off the rails. So some influence, but not great.
B
CB—it is SOP in federal courts for magistrate judges to be assigned cases for the motions and discovery phases, but they can’t sit as trial judge unless all parties consent. Most federal judges do not get involved in settlement, but leave that to mediators the parties hire either on their own or under court rules mandating alternative dispute resolution.
B
Can you post a link to the Amicus brief you reference.
G—but you have to understand judges do not write on blank slates. They were interpreting a statute in this case. Granted there is no doubt room for vastly different interpretations by different judges, but it all starts with the law as written by Congress. The judges are appointed by politicians, and political biases influence some judges more than others. So yes some political risk, but that is always present in these cases.
A
M-just curious how a shareholder has standing to file a Rule 60 challenge to an invalidity judgment rendered in a case filed by the company? Won’t the court say this is a motion that should be filed by Amarin? Why hasn’t Amarin filed such a motion if it has merit?
B
G—if you believe the court system is that unreliable in protecting patent rights, you would be crazy to ever invest in a stock with the patent risk of AMRN.
B
B—don’t get me wrong, I appreciate how you feel about this, but the depth of your conviction will not carry the day on this point any more than will the conviction felt by trump believers on the election. Time to move on, as hard as that may be.
It’s about sales, not conspiracy theories.
B
J—yes sentiment plays such a big factor in this, one that many including me can easily underestimate.
I have to disagree this was a fraud on the court. Our federal judges have very good staff and this one is not a dumb bunny. The problem is the HW law and how it has been interpreted. Instead of railing against corrupt and duped judges, people should lobby their congresspersons to do something about the law, but in a private sector healthcare world, where public health is secondary (see the current COVID vaccination debacle as Exhibit A), and cost is such a pressing problem, it is very hard to make a public health argument against generics generally.
A
Unfortunately, I have to agree.
Wow, impressive work. Thanks man.
B
S—do you really think that matters?
I say what really matters is sales, and patents.
B
Techically you can ask more than once but you don’t want to do that if you can avoid it.
J—you clearly know nothing about voting in the USA. The video you say is proof of fraud is nothing more than a prediction that more late votes would come in for Biden because Democrats traditionally vote more by absentee and mail than Republicans. It is no surprise that is what happened because that is what usually happens. You can’t spin away millions of votes against your loser candidate. He lost because he is incompetent at governing, not because all the evils in the world conspired against him. Get a life.
No. You just don’t want to go to a PI hearing without enough evidence to give you a clear shot at winning. You can still lose the PI and then do more discovery, but you will have lost the strength position.
They have to evaluate the strength of their evidence with this in mind. The law on this is also in flux, making the calculus that much more complex.
Bottom line is it would be foolish to push ahead mindlessly for a PI because some dopey investors think action is always the best option. There are serious tactical decisions that need to be made, and without knowing all the evidence, investors like you and me are not in a position to second guess counsel. But that won’t stop people from doing so, as the truth of the matter is that there are more horses asses on this board than ??.
Let’s hope
Agree, he is not the right person to lead from here. Hard to understand why the board does not get this.
Does not matter what the crowd thinks.
Neither you nor I know enough about the actual evidence to opine on whether an injunction request is viable now or later.
It would be pure speculation.
Strategy is up to the people that really know the evidence.
Wrong, a preliminary injunction motion can be filed at any time. Read the rules.
Slev—
AMRN is not going to seek an injunction now because they want to do some discovery (get documents and testimony) first. Once they can gather evidence from Hikma documents and testimony from depositions of their marketing people, they will then seek an injunction.
These infringement cases all hinge on the evidence. It’s more about the facts than the law.
Let them gather the incriminating evidence.
B
All of the above
This management needs to be replaced. Period. If any SH that have been long do not see this at this point, good luck, but hope you can afford the losses.
B
It’s all about the sales and earnings. The rest is just chatter.
B
Dyk was on the panel that upheld an obviousness decision for generics in a diabetes drug case in Novo Nordisk. Interestingly Klein, who argued this case for generics, was also one of the counsel for the generics in Novo.
Prost wrote the opinion in Novo and Newman dissented on the obviousness issue.
There is a rift on the court as to how strong the evidence has to be to invalidate the patent for obviousness. They are sparring about the right legal analysis on this question, and it is not yet resolved. I do not know where Hughes and Reyna sit on this debate, but will study their decisions in obviousness cases.
The judges are just like all humans. As the appeals court judge I worked for once said, “we put our pants on one leg at a time too.” They are competitive, and want to see their viewpoints adopted as the law of the land.
Dyk is tough on patentees because of his viewpoint on what it takes to prove obviousness (low threshold). They key is whether the other two are open to the argument that the generics in this case did not carry their burden to show clear and convincing obviousness, based on the evidence. That will be the core of their decision.
B
BB, sorry but I don’t agree. If an appeals judge is skeptical of arguments made by one side, they usually press their skepticism through questions like the ones you heard in the first case. No questions at all to generics counsel can only be bad.
Dyk has clearly made up his mind. Virtual silence from the other 2 is not a good sign, in my opinion.
B
MS—because the rules of appellate procedure say that trial courts get a certain amount of leeway, otherwise there would be endless appeals of every decision. The system has to operate, so every trial court decision can’t be subject to de novo review.
B
Oman—
We will get an opinion in this case no doubt, especially if it is a reversal. It’s much harder for an appellate court to reverse than affirm. Either way there will be an opinion as this case gives the court a great opportunity to clarify the rules on obviousness analysis. They must explain why the trial court got it wrong if the vote is to reverse, and, if the decision goes the other way, they must also explain why the decision could be upheld given the issues raised by the trial court’s unprecedented analysis of secondary considerations, and the analysis of the so called prima favor case of the generics.
B
Can you spell “clueless”
Poster child for why many are leaving this board