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.
Agree the board has degenerated lately. Hopefully that will improve, but probably not without some return to what we used to call civility and respect.
B
Z—Phone arguments can never truly replace the in person interaction, but they are pretty close. The case will not be won or lost in the oral argument anyhow; the real meat of the appeal is the briefs. Hard to not obsess about the event that is the argument, but the attention it has received on this board is overblown. Don’t make investment decisions based on the inevitability varying takes on the oral argument. If you don’t think there is a good chance of winning based on the briefs, then make your investment decisions now. I’m staying long.
B
S—to clarify, I mean the AMRN case, not your TX case.
B
ST—would appreciate if you would describe in detail the math problem you say the trial judge solved incorrectly and what the CTA should do to address the error.
Thanks much.
B
Yes this confirms that oral argument is not where cases are won or lost. This subject matter is so technical in nature that the decision will be based on the briefs and the record.
B
No, there’s a difference between math and interpretation of the statistical relevance of numbers from a drug trial. This is about proper interpretation of the raw data from the studies. Too much short cut analysis on this board, such as the 2+2=5 stuff. One thing I can assure you of as a lawyer is that Singer will do a much better job on this question than you or I could.
B
CTAFC VERY DIVIDED
For those interested in the strong divisions among the judges on the CTAFC, read American Axle v. Neapco Holdings, 2020 WL 4377542, decided on 7/31/20. This is the decision denying full court (en banc) review to a 3 judge panel ruling upholding a district court’s denial of patent eligibility to an auto driveshaft technology copied by the plaintiff’s competitor. Although it does not involve an obviousness question, the case is illuminating of the sharp divisions on the court over what is patentable and what is not. There are multiple dissents from Judges Newman, O’Malley and Stoll that talk at length about broader concerns regarding patent eligibility questions becoming too uncertain and too much of a “litigation gamble.”
Sound familiar?
B
I call BS.
Do you also think Hydroxy is the cure for Covid?
RAF—thanks for sharing. What is the timing?
B
Great analysis but will not matter to current appeal if not presented to trial court.
Yes you are correct sir.
HK—could not agree more. This case highlights the unfair advantage that the H-W act gives to generics. People in the reformer crowd who want to see real change come out of this case should focus on Congress.
B
ILT—we don’t need a fancy new precedent, we just need a reversal. Too much drama on this board about this appeal and the decision. The case will be decided on the fundamentals of obviousness analysis. It does not require anything more.
B
I believe the complaint went to the 9th Circuit, not the Federal Circuit where the appeal is being heard. Anyone who thinks this complaint will affect the appeal is smoking crack.
B
Practice law for 30+ years and you learn never to be too sure of yourself or the outcome of your cases. It is just not as predictable as you might think. That’s my take based on my experience for what it is worth.
B
M—completely agree, I’ve been saying this for a long time. I have no idea why they chose this court. It is always a bit of Monday morning quarterbacking, but very hard to understand given the more predictable alternatives.
A
It is much harder for an appeals court to reverse than to affirm, as the latter involves telling another federal judge publicly that they made mistakes. So cancellation of OA smells more of affirmative. If they are going to reverse they will give the generics a chance to argue, IMO.
B
And an electric bolt could make a rock jump that could blow out a traffic light that could result in someone running the light and causing an accident. But highly unlikely.
Marjac complaint can’t have any impact on the appeal. It’s only relevant if the CTA decides to remand. Motions to disqualify judges are rarely granted, and I have no opinion on the merits of the MJ motion.
B
TT-you infer we’ll how appeals courts operate. Like all courts, it is a constant onslaught of cases, and the objective is to get them resolved. They are studying the case now, and may decide to decide the case on the briefs. Oral argument is mostly window dressing in most cases. As Justice Ginsberg once said, you can’t win a case on oral argument, but you can lose one.
B
A
HK—your compliant is with Congress, not so much with the Courts. The HW Act gives generics the ability to challenge patents in this way, presumably on the basis that this helps to improve affordability of drugs in the US. This process will not change unless the HW act is changed.
B
Don’t be too impressed with yourself. Unbecoming.
LYT BB
Honestly, the constant unsupported price targets and opinions on this board contribute the least to the purpose of a message board because one can’t tell if they are based on sound analysis or one of the many innumerable and unreliable bases for stock value predictions. Don’t get me wrong, I appreciate all the thoughts, but the off the cuff stuff serves little purpose.
B
Breaking up is hard to do ..............
Bio—appreciate your perspective. Wondering if you remember Chuck Wepner the heavyweight boxer from the he 70s. He almost beat Ali in 75 and some think he was the inspiration for Rocky. I always think of him as the tougher than nails guy who was always willing to lead with his chin if that was necessary. I think of him when I see much of your work. I’m just not sure leading with the chin is always the most effective way in the biotech space.
B
No new ideas there
MJ—with u on the strategy, appreciate the good work.
B
P—easy to complain, harder to come up with new ideas ??
B
MJ—nice letter. What’s the end game? Get her recused from any remand? If so, I’m with you on the strategy, although there is some potential downside if you lose.
B
Exactly, this stupid decision would not even be possible without this stupid law. People can bark all they want about a bad decision by the court, but the statute is the real problem for companies like AMRN.
B
BB—no offense, but you are overthinking this to the extreme.
Take it easy man.
B
Get a clue. You think your case is the most important one on the planet because your money is involved. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the system does not work that way. There’s a whole docket of other cases that need to be managed along with this one. Unrealistic expectations from people who do not take time to understand the system coupled with blaming those that are not at fault does not provide any enlightenment to the board.
Understood, this is SOP. Does not mean it will get pushed out that far.
B
BIO—take it easy. This is all SOP. All the chatter about and August argument was just that. Singer will get this scheduled as soon as possible.
B
RAF—we will never know for sure, but in my view there was a business deal that could have been made, and the problem was more likely AMRN’s overconfidence and not intransigence on the part of generics. This was not bet the company litigation for generics, who had much less to lose. AMRN should have retained control of its own destiny and made a deal.
But I get that this is my hindsight perspective, which is different from the one they had at the time. Pretty ironic given that they now have to convince the CTA that the district court should be reversed because of hindsight bias.
B
RAF—
You are right in the abstract, but let’s put it in context. We know what Teva settled for, so it’s likely that these generics did not demand such one sided terms.
My point is that if they could settle for something reasonable, which is likely, they should have.
A
It’s does not matter what I think. They had all the inside info but they did not get it done. Now they have the very real problem of the judgment in their faces. I’m not counting on a settlement this far down the road. They have cast their lot and are likely going to see it through.
S.C.—
It is now clear that there was enough risk in this trial for AMRN that it is inconceivable they did not settle. The blame for that should fall on senior management and especially general counsel. Why risk an invalidity decision from a judge with little track record on this kind of case.
They should have never put a bet the company decision in the hands of a judge of this caliber. Very bad decision making, really not sure what could have motivated it other than arrogance. The appeal gives them some cover and hope for redemption, but the shareholders need to hold them to account for this hugely bad blunder.
Yes the trial judge got a lot of things wrong, but it was management’s stupid choice to put it in her hands.
B