How do you mean that? Like they will settle (or something) before the appeal?

Even so, a reversal may very well get us to a point where I can finally bail on this company, and never look back. Im hoping by a long shot that there will be some Covid19 news that will (probably inequitably) pop the stock for a minute... just long enough to say chau

Ha... at best! It was not an easy lesson for me to learn, either

Unable, sorry. It would require me to shoot myself. Im currently in a battle with Mirriam Webster to have that word removed from the English language, if not at least from JT’s brain

“Slam dunk”. The two most foolishly uttered words in the legal profession

Keep watching, Ill start getting pushback from people here and will be peeing on myself in no time

. Humor is lost on so many in this chatroom

Since this board is all about peeing into the wind.. Im gonna start peeing.

In 2 weeks, after the current C19 trials are over, it will have been found that 90% of those on a regimin of V rapidly “disinflamed” and walked out of the hospitals they were in. The news will get out, and like wildfire, AMRN will be worth $60 pps. In other words, we will all get rich from something that has nothing whatsoever to do with trigs or V’s indicated uses.

Wow

Excellent clarification. Thank you

Your #3

I understand that it was generally considered expected in the industry that LDL would rise in anyone who was given dha regardless the trigs level. I believe also that the obviousness part was that LDL would not rise in people with +500 trigs when no DHA was given to them because mori proved there was no LDL increase in everyone under 500 who received vascepa (no dha) and so Du assumed that people with over-500 trigs would also have no rise. Was there no study that showed the LDL did on fact rise in people +500 who were given Vascepa? Didn’t Reduce-it show this? I understood that the bodies in people +500 always caused increases in LDL because of how trigs were being processed trigs flooding out of the body. I thought Covington drilled that into Du’s head ad nauseum, to no avail

It’s singer’s third argument in his brief. He is using all the skill he has to get it in, and if he can get the judges to listen, they will see that DU came to her (factual) conclusion before having heard all the evidence, then procedurally screwed up by shifting the burden onto AMRN to prove that the secondary considerations supported nonobviousness.

Im not a trial attorney so I can only say so much. The standard for getting factual stuff in is so high but also depends on too many human factorsto even be able to answer

I didnt always agree with what you just said but I believe that had BP owned a significant part (if not outright) of this company, the outcome of the DC’s ruling would have been different. It’s also likely that exploiting the drug would be drastically different if BP was in charge.

I no longer support JT’s vision of GIA. It is clear there are too many forces acting against us around the world that I believe would not exist if we were a $50bb company who is a major BP player.

I want this company sold to a major BP company with massive clout, like Sanofi

That’s exactly what we have. The idiocy of having judges with different points of view is the most difficult part to reconcile for me. The law is the law. Apply it evenly, and keep your damned politics out of it

Its pretty amazing what this company has overcome in the past. I think AMRN is as well-positioned as it is ever going to be to get this overturned. It’s absurd to say this, but my fingers are crossed... that’s all we can do. It’s a crap shoot

The bar for finding factual error is absurdly high. There must be clear error, but what gets an appeal court to adjudicate on clear error is so high its almost not worth even discussing. I believe one of Singer’s arguments is that Du made a clear error on ignoring secondary considerations on nonobviousness. At least he is attempting it

That is generally correct. It is not the function of the appeal court to second-guess findings of fact, but instead to find errors of law

In hindsight it sure makes sense what he says, but not a single post that I read here, not broker article, analyst post, etc. Even mentioned this obvious error. Maybe it wasn’t as obvious as the doc thinks it was. Hindsight in an argument is a fools endeavor.

In fact, Du used a crapload of hindsight in the trial... huge mistake on her part

Unfortunately, the appeal court does not delve into findings of fact. They are only concerned with errors of law. I’m not sure how this point can be reconciled during the appeal, but Singer knows this, so I hope/expect he will find a way to get around it

Kiwi, I just think the guy is amazingly intelligent (though he can’t spell for shit) and has brought more to this board (information, perspective, expertise) than any other member, but he has the social graces of a gnat and loves to jam his education and how long someone has been on the board, in their faces. I started here in 2014 under a nickname I ultimately forgot, and always looked for his posts. He always kept my hope up.

I just can’t stomach his attitude toward so many he considers beneath him. He really is an ass. He’s brilliant, but an ass is an ass.

There’s the doc as we know him all too well. Utterly full of himself

Right on

I believe the market and investors are still in shock at the judgment. The rest of the world will massively take advantage of Vascepa and it will pay us all off very well. The challenge is simply having the time to wait for that to happen. Even with zero sales in the US, I think we will be worth a heck of a lot more than we are at rught now. It just seems US ads would affect/create awareness in other countries

I cant disagree with that but what about the rest of the question? I think the advertising would significantly turn into international interest

I don’t quite understand the logic behind not moving forward with the advertising plans in the US. Even with generic competition, the drug will be dispensed as written, in many cases, and we will still make a ton of money in the US, even with the generic competition. Also, does the desirability of a drug in the US, whether it’s brand name or generic not also significantly affect international markets? If something is saving thousands and thousands of lives in the United States, won’t every other country on the planet find out about it and want it? I just don’t understand why we aren’t moving full steam ahead with the advertising

Great. Ill go get my facts from Fox like you do. I didnt bring up Flynn

That’s my fear. Im not sure what, if anything, could be done about it, but it sure should be made clear in appeals court so the panel can consider those facts in light of the verdict she rendered

Some of those things Im not aware of. Thank you. ill look more deeply for my own edification. Thank you again.

Oh I see. He admitted to everything he was charged for and was sentenced accordingly... but Im the crackhead. This far-right-wing forum is out of its effing mind. How easily you forget the facts

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2020/05/07/opinion/michael-flynn-charges-dropped.amp.html

I could not imagine going through something like that. It would seem something that deep would incapacitate anyone... and with a red button that would have a $ multi-billion outcome... it certainly seems rational that she should have recused herself

Yecch, another independent, deep, intelligent thinker

Im not even sure what youre talking about re: sullivan. If he has the right to per the law to prevent a gross political miscarriage, he absolutely should be doing his job. If you tbink Flynns dismissal wasn’t a flagrant political move by Trump, then I have nothing to say to you

Based solely on the limited info I think I have, I believe she should have recused herself if it’s true her son died during the trial. What underlied her son’s condition?

Im not an alarmist wingnut for either party. Anybody can make up all the crap they want about what happened but nobody knows what was underlying her judgment. I simply defer to the job she was hired to do and that judges are generally professionals.

Anything else is just conspiracy garbage

What an awful thought. Remand will/would take so much more time off the clock, and we will have a pissed off judge who will find other rationale for a new finding of obviousness

Because this case is being taken de novo, doesn’t a remand possibility disappear?

I think you're doing a great service by presenting your argument. If nothing else, it may serve to inform the Appellate Court of an issue they would not otherwise consider. Thank you