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.
North/ marjac
Thank you North for your revelation of past success with the activist investor now hopefully shaping the future of Amarin and its eventual sale
Your past experiences gives us all great encouragement following what have been difficult times with Amarin
Maybe they will get behind Marjac and his team and push Amarin hard to do the same
- to be sure they are aware (hard to think they are not though)a link to the case papers could be sent for the Rule 24/60
Alm
15
Alm
Hayward
Yes
Alm
Bolio- Teca what’s the point of entering now ? May as well wait to see where the patent litigation goes which won’t take long - if judges Andrews allows case to go to trial by not dismissing maybe The generics will settle - Hikma and Reddys- or if there is a trial Teva can wait not long for trial outcome
If there is infringement willTeva want to share the high trigs market with two others - maybe even they would pull out if only a small market left to them
Litigation outcomes are yet very important in this story
Shame we are all bashed and weary the board makes for depressing reading - I suppose reflecting the more recent years depressing story of share ownership in Amarin
But things change … let’s be optimistic and hopeful
Alm
Marjac
I fully understand
The passion shines through
Alm
8 - Marjac
8 - Du - I agree courts are v reluctant to criticise their own - and making out Du to have her own agenda is wildly dangerous
As I see it the FC can simply be told the story of what happened
Du heard the case
She announced that POSA did not consider Kura(she is probably quite wrong as K
was referenced)
She did consider Kura
She reached view that POSA would not have granted patents if had considered Kura as would have assessed patents as obvious (based on her mistaken understanding of KuRa)
She rectified the position by applying her understanding of Kura and thus finding patents obvious
But she was misled by fraud at worst / mistake at best into the completely false view of KuRa (generic expert evidence and cropped table -Epadi expert Jarvis makes this plain )
The reality is PoSA got it right
And Du was misled into getting it wrong - not her fault
Du also relied on Mori - again she was unaware of statistical incorrectness of Mori - not her fault
We don’t have to blame Du as to the patent trial
We do have to assert that she got it wrong as to Rule 24
Alm
Marjac
As to your second paragraph
She stated POSa did not consider K ( but ? Is was she right or wrong on that point and why did she reach that conclusion - how was she persuaded of this ?
We know K was extant at the time POSA was considering patent application
Even if POSA was unaware of K because it was extant (as I understand patent law) the POSA should have taken it into account
Du would thus be right to both consider K and to say if POSA had considered K he would have taken it into account in the patent process
She obviously believed that if POSa had considered K he would not have granted patents
So Du did take it into account and ruled patents obvious
- because she was led to the wrong interpretation of K (by fraud by generics/ by mistake)
If she had been led to the correct view of K she would not have found patents obvious
Will it be the right approach to suggest Du was reaching the views she did because she had her own activist position as to patents ??
Or is it better to say well she was doing her job .... she thought K not considered by POSA ( identifying how she reached this viewi if one can eg lawyer for generics told her that K not considered by POSA )and she did the right thing thereafter in considering K - she was correct to consider K
But telling the FC that she had been misled by generics as to what K meant and ruled patents obvious because of this
Alm
Alm
North
Thank you for your most detailed and helpful reply
Putting the question thus directly what should Du have concluded as To K being considered by POSA given that K was referenced ?
Alm
North
Thank you for your most detailed and helpful reply
Putting the question thus directly what should Du have concluded as To K being considered by POSA given that K was referenced ?
Alm
Marjac
I agree that Du could have righted the position when Epadi brought Rule 24 / 60 before her
Forgive me but you I think misunderstand me and the point I was getting at
She (rightly or wrongly) was of the view that Posa did not consider K
Why did she reach that view ??
did the generics either through lawyers or expert persuade her that K was not considered by PoSa ?
She was not saying - “Posa considered K but reached an incorrect conclusion as to K and because I have considered K and I reach a completely different view “ I rule patents obvious
She was saying “posa did not consider K but I have considered K - if Posa had considered K he would - as I now do have considered patents obvious and not granted patents - I therefore rule patents invalid as obvious “
The Posa should have considered K - it was available at the time for consideration
She was saying he didn’t consider it
If she was saying Posa DID consider K she would have to ruled in effect that POSA got his consideration of K wrong
So it is important to understand why she reached the View K was not considered by PoSA
Did generics deliberately lead her to this conclusion that K not considered by POSA
Was doing so part of their plan ?
I say she was doing her job properly in this context -
If POSA did not consider k in granting patents she is right to say POSA should have .... and she said POSA did not consider K
But it was referenced by Posa. - somehow she was persuaded it was not considered
Is posa reference enough to demonstrate it was “considered” by POSa
Alm
Marjac
Just on the point of Du stating POSA did not consider K
Is there anywhere in trial record any reference to this ??
For example did counsel go the generics ever state/ submit
that POSA had not considered K ?
Did their expert ever say in evidence to the Judge that POSA did not consider K ?
How did DU reach this understanding as To POSA not having considered K ?
If this was planted by the generics it adds a great deal of further colour to the fraud ??
Thus Planting the notion to Du that Posa had not considered K but that Du could and thus could correct the failure of POSa
Alm
Marjac
Humour me- the way the Du decision came about has been troubling me
Du refers in her judgement to POSA not having considered K - this is very very important
however In this she appears in all probability wrong in that K is referenced by POSA and thus considered (although there is no actual record in the Posa process
(???? -Was this point ever raised in the trial as to how one knows what a POSA considers ???)- does referencing allow one to infer consideration by POSA ?? )
However - Her line of reasoning must have been that IF POSA HAD Actually considered K he would have Ruled Patents obvious
Why would she think this ? -because she actually DID consider K AND of course having been sucked in by Heinke and cropped table - she considered -quite wrongly -that was the impact to be drawn from K - K would render patents obvious
And so Du was righting this wrong by POSA -his failure to consider K and it’s impact and thus ruled the patents obvious
She was doing her job properly .......
Conversely If the Posa had done his job properly (by considering the K study which was extant at the time - so thought Du -he would never have granted the patents. - thus his omission as to not considering K led to POSA granting - quite wrongly- the patents
We believe / consider that
1-POSA - ( having actually considered K ) - and without the impact of being misled by Heinke / cropped table -POSA -got it right and granted patents
2-but if POSA had not considered K he would nonetheless grant (albeit he should have been aware of K and considered ( the rule being that every study anywhere in the world of relevance should be in PoSa consideration/ mind )
So Either way Posa would have granted the patents
Du thought POSA had not considered K
What is impact of this ?
Du was of the view that POSA did not but should have taken into account K
As such
She was doing her job properly - Du can not be and is not being criticised for her actions
So she considered K But she was misled by fraud into a wholly false meaning as to the K study
And thus made the wrong decision in finding the patents obvious
Note - In the same way she bears no blame as to Mori - she was never made aware in the trial of the statistical issue as to Mori - (as per Bhatt paper )
Alm
Kiwi
Also Amarin may have considered they would struggle with Rule 60- they were a party- they may have faced challenge over
As to why they did not in the Du proceedings bring challenge
-as to Heinke evidence (as Jarvis is now doing in Epadi case)
-as to K table cropping (as Epadi now doing)
- as to the statistical analysis of Mori (as Epadi now doing)
The problem would be nee Rule 60 for them - a party - would be challenged as second bite of cherry -you lost - so you are now trying new tack / trying to introduce new evidence to get result you want
And of course they would be self exposing their own failings in the Du case - opening up legal action against them ?
Alm
Kiwi
You are correct ...JT and board have never made shareholders aware of why they did not pursue Rule 60
However they were litigating the Appeal against the Du decision - were in the midst of it when the “facts” behind the Rule 60 became apparent to shareholders ( I won’t go through the history of this )
TheY may possibly have considered they could not run as it were at the same time both forms of litigation - I suppose on this basis - their route (I am being very simplistic) the patents were taken away by errors of law by Du - the Rule 60 - there is fraud / mistake as to fact which led to patents being wrongly taken away
It may have been thus that they would have to have abandoned the Singer Appeal to go down the Rule 60 -
But this is speculation on my part
Marjac others may have other view on this
Alm
Kiwi
You are correct ...JT and board have never made shareholders aware of why they did not pursue Rule 60
However they were litigating the Appeal against the Du decision - were in the midst of it when the “facts” behind the Rule 60 became apparent to shareholders ( I won’t go through the history of this )
TheY may possibly have considered they could not run as it were at the same time both forms of litigation - I suppose on this basis - their route (I am being very simplistic) the patents were taken away by errors of law by Du - the Rule 60 - there is fraud / mistake as to fact which led to patents being wrongly taken away
It may have been thus that they would have to have abandoned the Singer Appeal to go down the Rule 60 -
But this is speculation on my part
Marjac others may have other view on this
Alm
Kiwi
Think of it this way
A CEO indeed a board of directors have a fiduciary duty to represent the interests of the shareholders
However - what if a CEO or Board refuse to take appropriate legal steps to represent the shareholders interests
Whilst the shareholders can act to correct the failure of the CEO /Board such action can not necessarily happen in an instant - there are procedures to be followed and such takes time
Now put this failure into the context of the litigation rules and time limits that operate -in respect of the patent challenge litigation-could Epadi / indeed all shareholders - after it became apparent ( on request to the CEO) that Amarin were not going to pursue Rule 60- immediately and within the requirement that Rule 60 litigation is embarked on not only within the 12 month time frame but also on a timely basis have removed the Board and CEO to ensure the Rule 60 opportunity was not lost to the company (and its shareholders)
Epadi had in effect no choice but to issue immediately it could to try and achieve this purpose - otherwise it would have been lost
The court will (one hopes) see that there was no other option open within the time frames applicable to this litigation(Rule 60litigation)
Not indeed that the generics and indeed Du view the action brought as untimely (although the generics suggested in effect an absurd interpretation of what in the context of this litigation of what timely is
Hope this helps - i
Alm
Marjac
Thanks - and plenty of time to prepare for your incredible day in court ... practice practice practice - always makes perfect - and the golf mantra applies
“The more I practice the luckier I get “
Not for me to try teach but I always found that in practice you need someone to constantly interrupt you to try and push you off point - one then has to respond to the interruption- but steer back on point
What I see from the transcripts has been Amarins lawyers not being prepared for exactly this ....
I am sure you will be beyond brilliant
Alm
Jasbg
You and me I am sure with many others -we will keep the faith ! And -Best that we all keep our heads
Alm
Kiwi
And that valuation assumes USA market has no value at all ...however
What do we learn from results and SP fall ?
It’s all about instant gratification .... negative reaction because it’s not all created in an instant and sales in USA down (we all knew that anyway from scripts)
Amarin I remain sure will have a much higher share price in 1 year from now and again will rise further two years from now - 10 - 15 over two years is quite possible
Sales and profits is the future driver
They need to deliver in Europe Row and maintain what they can in USA- they have to grind it out
I agree covid now resolved by Pfizer / Merc. Anti virals
Patent litigation success is the long shot wild card along with BO by a Pharma that is certain it can do a hugely better sales job - but again long shot
We probably all need to take a 12 month / 2 year vacation from daily looking at this stock
Better times ahead one hopes !
Alm
North/ marjac
How soon are we expecting the case to be listed for oral arguments?
Alm
Louieblouie
Count me in
Alm
8
I am not familiar in detail with USA court procedures but logic dictates that the Judge has not rejected the Magistrates conclusion
If he had he could have simply ruled to dismiss irrespective of any further hearing - despite her recommendation that the case should not be dismissed
The only logical explanation is that in addition to the procedure undertaken by the magistrate in her hearing from the parties before writing her report / recommendation -and the Judge thereafter considering that report - (but see below)is that he also wished to give the parties the opportunity of making oral argument before him
They did so
He will now decide taking into account everything
Her report
Oral arguments before him
I do not share your view/ interpretation of the oral arguments hearing being for the first 2/3rds the Judge onside with generics
What I did clearly detect was lack of familiarity -frankly if the judge had read in detail and digested Magistrate Halls report that would have been reflected in informed observation from the Judge which was conspicuously absent
I did consider that he had bearing in mind the test to be applied more than adequate argument from Amarin to rule that the case should not be dismissed at this stage - thus it should proceed to trial - and his observation ultimately seemed to support such
Alm
Sleven
You are exactly right
Alm
8
Who / what suggests J dismissed the Magistrates opinion ... he can in addition invite oral argument can he not ?
Given the significance of the case he may well have taken the view that allowing / inviting oral argument places his decision whatever it may be in a stronger light than if there had not been oral argument
Alm
8
He has not disregarded the magistrates report - he simply asked the parties to provide oral argument in addition before reaching his decision
So the magistrate recommended that the generics application for dismissal be refused
The judge will take her report into account as well as the oral arguments he heard
We await his decision
I have read the magistrates well reasoned report and the oral arguments and the judges comments during the hearing
Nothing to suggest that the Judge will rule for dismissal
Alm
Rose - Amarin share price
I think you are right -as to the core of the business at the end of the day it’s all about turnover and profit
In the short time Karim has been in charge they have done a much -slashed USA costs and started the drive into Europe
It takes time
Sure there is more they can do and more to be done but folk are plain wrong if they think it can all be done in 3 months
3 years is more like it
However perception can drive an SP up - and down -and perceptions can change quickly
There are still many things that lie ahead over the next 12 months which can quickly alter perception
I expect the SP will rise from this level - I bought another 15000 shares yesterday
Alm
Louie Louie
I am praying very hard
I want you to get your beach house
Alm
Marjac
First read
Absolutely on point ... direct ...robust ..destructive of the defendants attempt to divert from the real issues
Smith and Intel ...brilliant analysis .... and exposed the defendants and their lawyers for what they are all puff and no substance - (and seemingly do not even read the case law to which they refer )
The glaring fact that the Defendants make no attempt to deny the Rule 60 as to its substance really exposed -
defendants can not “deny the undeniable “-That just says it all in four words
A masterpiece of which you can truly be proud ....simply incredible- few could ever aspire to such
We have only one problem .... we need to have three Federal Court Judges who will read this Appeal documentation and understand the case from a scientific and logical perspective - if so
The truth would then prevail
The right panel ....
Alm
Marjac
I look forward to acclaiming your -Magnum opus - for that it will surely be
Alm
Jasbg and 8
A hot debate about the class actions
The way I see it there was plenty wrong in the way the Du case was dealt with but whether such is actionable is in my view very doubtful but I am no legal expert on such matters ( although a lawyer)
I doubt the 50 lawyer firms will attract many clients - their problem is that few current shareholders will A- consider it a good idea to take action which they may perceive might just possibly damage the company they continue to be a shareholder in -and B -will probably doubt they will succeed and but if they do will get cents rather than dollars
Whether former shareholders will be bothered about A is doubtful so maybe more traction there but again can they be bothered with years of litigation with probably peanuts or no peanuts at all
As with most of these things steam will run out
As to hit debate -Seems to me we can each of us make our minds up what we wish do - I don’t defend the past but look with hope to the future
I am for one more concerned now about the future of the company than the past ...
I would rather hope to recover lost ground in the future of the company - I remain optimistic of improvement ahead
Alm
Tasty
Yes - as to USA sales - as we are now in this phase - no point throwing big bucks trying to develop USA as it stands - run it lean and mean
But if the infringement case goes Amarins way -or Rule24/60 -then there will be an adjustment as to USA plan
Alm
Tasty
Well I just entered - bought another 6000shares
I am relying on you being right that they are worth over 10 in a years time -
Alm
8
Is there a procedure for joining at this late stage ... we are at Appeal to Fc against Du decision of no standing
How can Amarin procedurally join now ??
Alm
Jasbg
No - the FC will not in my view reject this appeal in any way based on the fact that Amarin did not pursue Rule 60
These are litigation proceedings which are based on their facts and case law - as to standing - no court will in effect say oh Amarin did not bring so it has no merit -
we can only speculate as to why Amarin did not bring it - they actually could have thought it had huge merit but for other reasons not brought it (for example adversely affecting their appeal against Du decision- or opening flood gates as to Amarin it’s lawyers failings- who knows? Only Amarin )
But the court won’t get bogged down in speculation over this or even a debate over this
Does Rule 24 on the facts as to standing and on the case law as to standing (taken together )win the day.... or does it fail on its facts and or on case law ?
That is the question the FC should address - it’s nothing to do with Amarin not bringing it / or Amarin not supporting it(as the generics try to assert - in my view an argument which is pointless and wholly without merit
Ask it the other way round - if Amarin had in some way supported the Rule24 / Rule 60 would the generics just say .... oh that’s ok then .... we loose ???
Alm
Jasbg- can Amarin actively support Rule 60?
Well the first thing to say is that Amarin and it’s lawyers will have been reading the case papers in the Rule /24 and Rule 60 case - so they know the story in detail and from the inside also !!
They will have seen Genrics trying to pray in aide the fact that Amarin have not supported it
The second thing to say is Amarin have not brought this case (obvious I know)- if they had the Rule 24 issue of standing would not be in issue - however -Amarin may have faced in bringing this case issues as to why they did not seek/ provide evidence on certain matters in the original trial - thus Mori - why did you not challenge the statistical findings of Mori through expert evidence ?- thus -you could have instructed an expert to do this but now that the case has been found against you you want to start all over and bring in new evidence - so there may have been hurdles to overcome - as to K study and cropped table - why did they not see this / object to it when it first appeared in case papers ?-they could have gone straight back to Du when this materialised and said hang on here Judge you can’t use this cropped table in your judgement it’s plain wrong to do so it’s misinforming you
But we all know they didn’t
They did not object to theRule 24/60 - well it would be hard /astonishing to all if they did - but support ? Exactly how?
Difficult perhaps - because how could they- they would be admitting errors/ things they did not do / got wrong in the trial / where would that leave them / their lawyers ? But also an outside party to Amarin independent of Amarin has been able to bring this case and present it unfettered by Amarin as to what iAmarin did or didn’t do
That outside party can present the facts - as so admirably Marjac and his team have done
Amarin not supporting is a nothing point in the litigation - generics have no weight at all in this point (see a post I wrote on this very issue)
So I do not see actually great value on Amarin “supporting “this in the litigation itself
As to how they could do so at this very late stage is also questionable ?
An amicus brief - would they have standing as a litigating party to provide such ? I doubt it
Seek to take over the litigation from Epadi ? Not sure how that at this late stage they could possibly do this
So we are we’re we are on this
Marjac reply due in by Tuesday ... he will be busy signing it off now
It will be brilliant in its destruction of the generics case
It’s all about whether the FC will bite into this case
Right panel and we could have fireworks going off
Alm
Eight
I have clear recollection also of posting by Jl that he had raised with POSA that they had misinterpreted statistics? in their assessment of Mori and this challenge by JL led to reassessment by POSA
Sorry I can’t be more specific it’s all a long time ago ... but it does not relate to the discovery of the Mori statistical errors by the academic statistician (name escapes me but he posted all detail on this board- he was quite brilliant ) the Bhatt paper took up this cudgel
The JL issue and the Bhatt issue re Mori were quite different
I agree with you that Amarin were quite wrong not to take up Rule 60- whilst they were perusing other litigation to get patents restored it is beyond belief that they did not take the Rule 60 route also
Amariin /it’s lawyers were at fault for not totally fine tooth combing all the studies in play in the patent trial and a smart statistician employed to check the stats in these studies could have had huge impact on Mori - same applies to being blind to the K study tactics
Given they were a one product company and their world depended on it they should have spent every cent / followed every line of attack / every detailed analysis of studies in the trial proper and then by god worked every angle (rule 60 included) to restore the patents when they were Du blown out of the water
Marjac we all hope will work a miracle
Tuesday and his reply is out
Let’s hope the FC gives this traction
Hope all well with you and family
Alm
Styles - time of the essence ???? How long a period of time - a day - a week - a month - a year - more ???
USA - the litigation fight by amarin (and Marjac) continues-litigation takes a long time
USA - KM has shown already that costs are being cut - reps reduced - one way of strengthening the USA profit loss position - Amarin are trying to keep up USA sales - but over time (not immediately generics will sell more - supply is their issue / and litigation they face
USA - maybe HLS deal is precursor to new arrangements in USA (partnership/BO)
Other than this - what more Amarin do in USA - except say more /PR more which is very much lacking
USA - covid - Argentina trial results November - ??? What impact ??
Europe - time of essence? It will take time to develop this market but all agree a big market - What else can Amarin do in Europe other than that which they are rolling out ?
- save Partnersip/Bo - PR everything more
Yes it will take time -
SP today relevant only if today you are selling and on basis of whether you are making a profit or loss on the sale
SP could double treble quadruple - in 12 months / 2years
Things with Amarin will not change as to its general development of its business instantly - it will take time
There is no point thinking it will miraculously change its general business position instantly
But there are many things which could cause share price to rise significantly
Alm
Capt
Brilliant !!
Send it on to Amarins lawyers least they forget this major point of infringement
Alm
rose
Sensible questions ....
But they can be directed also with other BP in mind not just Pfizer
So a stab at some answers .....
Amarin a steal ???? - with a share price of 5 which has been roughly where we have been running for a year many would suggest the BO cost is presently and has been for some time such to encourage a steal
Would a cost equivalent to10 ps take it though ?
Do big shareholders / the board think it worth more- at least 15 - I suspect so
But to attain that level does not litigation hangover fog the air as to USA market and as European market it is only just setting up - and other usage of V may yet take shape -so BP can sit on hands for a while and watch
As to GIA - Amarin will until it is not - no choice - but the right money buys any company !! However over time much can happen to improve the companies position and maybe move the needle
My view is that KM and the company are way to quiet - but time required to get ducks in a row
In a few months - maybe by 2022 we will start to hear a concerted noise from Amarin
rafs Pfizer post says it all !!!
As to HLS -is no harm to Pfizer but it does give hands on selling of the drug as a precursor to BO if they wish or other possible arrangements
It does Amarin no harm either
Alm
Lizzy I see others have already offered I Will chip in 100 dollars
Alm