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.
Share price
Does it really matter whether the share moves down or up 50 cents on this news ??
What is really important is
1 what happens in relation to legal proceedings to preserve the USA market
2 how you move this company into increasing sales and grow a profit
will the new CEO generate new focus into making this a growing profitable business ...?? That’s the big test for him
. Thero has been CEO - for past year or so sadly the company has well and truly stagnated (covid played its part) but above all he else steered the ship into the most devastating and totally avoidable patent loss
Time was ripe for change - the new CEO could do worse ??? But unlikely
Dramatic change could occur - Fortune will shine on him and this company if one of 3 sets of proceedings bears fruit -
but big cost effective marketing changes need to be made to get sales up and make profits
The right result in legal proceedings and 12 months of a new sales direction which works will see the SP move up 5 dollars and maybe 10
And who knows what interest BP this may arose ....
Alm
Hindukush/ marjac
Du to Amarin - is this true guys ? -
(So Du must be asking this question after allowing Rule24 motion - if she does not allow Rule24 she won’t be asking anyone’s further view on anything
She won’t be asking Amarin about Rule 24 -will she ??? On what basis ... ? And if she did there is only one answer Amarin can give - we agree party bringing proceedings has standing ....
So moving to a question Amarin may be asked in Rule 60 proceedings
Amarin - yes it is true
du-Why did you not point it out in the trial???
HK
I struggle with this as a relevant question in these Rule 60
Proceedings
This is a real danger - we don’t want to get side tracked in to why Amarin did or did not do something in the trial
The focus is now on what did happen in the trial - not what didn’t happen (because of Amarin failing to take a particular route )
So what happened in the trial -( we know ....) mistake / fraud on the court - as to K and Mori -but for such there would not have been a ruling of obviousness
So the only question if Du wishes to pose it of Amarin is -do you agree with the asserted matters by plaintiff in these rule 60 proceedings
Amarin can only give one answer -yes
(I appreciate that the posing of the question nor the answer will be perhaps as simplistic as I have set out but in short form this is the story
Du must not be allowed to switch this case to one of - well Amarin didn’t take up these matters so I am ruling against you - the focus must not be on Amarin and it’s trial failures
That is not the issue here - it’s not whether or not Amarin messed up (we know they did) It’s whether there is mistake and fraud and thus this decision has to be set aside
Alm
Marjac
Got to say that is a legal masterpiece ..
..Hikma gave you the opportunity to reinforce your case and you sure took it -they shot themselves in the foot and so many times
It gave you the opportunity to really lay out and again what Heinke did and what the court were taken in by
It is incredibly compelling
It is clearly outside any legal reason or logic for this petition to be denied
Alm
Lemmi
Two things
First - Cancer - such is incredible news - part of a pattern of the astonishing potential of V - that potential will lead to -
Second - you and a whole bunch of us will in time make very significant gains on Amarin shares
Things will come good - you won’t have to mark time for too long cos our year end poll on share prices has us at 22 - see whether we were collectively on point
Alm
Hindukush/ marjac
So with both post trial submissions being submitted on the same day Amarin did not have the opportunity to counter - at post trial submission at least have the opportunity to correct the cropping
Presumably however they could have subsequently have sought to introduce a correction prior to Du ruling if they had picked this up
They just never worked it out -
What Hikmas expert was putting over and the cropped table - the penny just never dropped with Amarin or it’s lawyers. Alm
Marjac
Thanks for this
So none of the experts were referred to / or themselves actually referred to the exhibit by the table being physically produced/being shown directly to them in open court - although Hikmas expert referred specifically to it by reference to the tables and findings he reached from such - never of course referring to the NS conclusion in the table or the body of the report referencing non statistical significance - and upon which the defendants relied in their post trial submissions and supported such by the cropped table -whereas the full table demonstrates clearly - NS
It really was quite deliberate wasn’t it ......
Alm
North
Agree important to identify in so far as possible the when and how the cropped table enters the fray ...did Amarin include the full table in their post trial submissions ? Yet Du (or her clerk) simply adopted via copy and paste Hikma post trial submissions and cropped table ??
Alm
hindukush / marjac
Presumably the post trial submissions came firstly from Amarin and at a later date from Hikma ... the dating of these submissions can be shown no doubt from the pacer trial record
It may be relevant to show that Hikmas was delivered last in time ... i
And ?? Did Amarin submit any table from K in their post trial submissions??? If they submitted the full table (obviously not cropped ) it would further show that Du simply adopted the deliberately cropped version hook line and sinker
Alm
I think we should all be labelled
“The glorious disgruntled retail investors “
For that is what we are-glorious in our defence of the truth
Proud to be a member !!
Alm
Marjac
That’s my boy ! - give them some more i hub reading / homework to get through over the holiday week end
Hikma are fighting on so many legal fronts now they are just lashing out like cornered prey waiting to be (legally) killed
Hikma’s response was in legal terms .... “piss poor”
Goliath is rattled ....
Alm
Lemmi /marjac and the team
I am coming to Vegas 2 .(if I can ever get from the UK to the USA). I couldn’t make Vegas 1 ...
I want to meet all the “glorious disgruntled”-
all the very clever highly intelligent amusing astonishingly determined gifted fighting spirits that are my pals on this board
The glorious disgruntled Shareholders who have contributed in so many ways to try to right the most grevious wrong that was perpetrated in the District Court of Judge Du
A word for Marjac and the team -
The brilliance of all of your work in the Rule 24/ Rule 60 is pointedly reflected in the abject paucity of response from Hikma - is gutter sniping at Marjac and suggesting shareholders have “no interest” really the best Hikma can do ?
I am sure you will continue to wipe the floor with them
But -hell We all just cooked up a conspiracy ....No wait ... Hikma you got us there .... we did just that
We all conspired together and agreed to work to present Judge Du with the truth
Judge Du ...will now have read the truth of what occurred in her court - in respect of which -
Hikma ....we all await with baited breath your response to Rule 60 - the truth does not lie
Alm
Study - Europe sales
Amarin is currently selling 80k approx in USA - see weekly script figures
Can Europe relatively quickly not provide another 20k per week taking Amarin over 100k ? Would that growth (and more) impress the market ?
Growth is now possible into a whole new market no generic competition - no advertising costs
Tying up supply with Amarin
Big pharma seeing it working in practice can only help tempt them further
China ROW - USA not the dead duck it was once thought?
Lots of positives to consider
It’s a big market world wide that is suddenly opening up ...
Does not seem much basis to run the share price down ???
Alm
Ralphy - this should be sent to every healthcare provider every pharmacy every doctor
It is both brilliant and simple to follow
It is one of the best posts I have ever read on this very informed board
All should send it on to whomsoever they can
Alm
Amarin “we do not intend to support this independent action”- as to Rule 60
I consider these words have been carefully chosen
Firstly this is litigation that has not been brought by Amarin so it is an action in law independent of the company
Secondly -“ support “ -
Financially ... ?no it is brought independent of Amarin
Then as to the litigation itself ??? Well how can Amarin actually support it - or not support it .... well Amarin is actually not a party to the litigation so actually does not have any standing ???
Is there a situation here when an Amicus can be raised within the Rule 24/rule 60 proceedings
I doubt it ( but Marjac may better advise )
But can the court invite a view from Amarin ? - and until it does why would Amarin adopt any position ?
It may in fact be that Amarin recognise that -now - an independent party to Amarin actually has the opportunity to litigate Rule 60 whereas Amarin would have been hamstrung by its own failures and prior lines of argument in the Du trial / the why did you not bring this up in the trial syndrome
I do not consider you can simply say Amarin don’t give a hoot about what’s going on - and hell if it succeeds they might be a tad happy !!
There are lots of things to consider as to how this game is played out by Du / by the generics / by the team / by Amarin
Interesting that there has as of yet been no outside observation made about this action for example Markman / analysts and so forth
Has it circulated yet ??
Are they waiting to see some response from DU’s court ?
Interesting times
Alm
Marjac / Hindukush
I for one have deeply considered the Rule 60 case as presented in the application
Although a lawyer and not a scientist the science is so very clearly set out - a logical route is established to quite simply render to ashes the various false premise that were invented in the gv case
- K and M do not on any scientific analysis support obviousness
It is akin to the observation of the eye in a flat landscape that the earth is flat - (the eye we know deceives )but the proposition can be made -
“all that I see is flat and so the earth must be “
Science established that this proposition is incorrect
Du saw the earth as flat - she was persuaded this was so by scientific mumbo jumbo
And thus Amarin sailed off the edge of the world (share price collapsed)
the case now presented by Marjac/ hindukush - evidenced by Jarvis propels the scientific case - as if Du is assisted into an orbit of the earth
she can now consider the truthful science -she can see it with her very own eyes -
The scientific case presented to her is now as convincing as looking out of the orbiter window and seeing the world beneath her for what is - round - not flat
Let truth prevail
Alm
Marjac
I hear what you say - all noted and agreed. Alm
Kiwi / marjac
It’s an interesting point ... and I develop for the sake of being aware of what may be thrown at us!!
a shareholder is not the company - shareholders have rights separate from the company itself
Sometimes of course the company through its directors take actions which are quite at odds with the interests of shareholders - in the Uk the Companies Act sets out clearly all of these things - I am not sure what governs such matters in USA but I suspect there will be clear parallels
There are times when shareholders can take action against the directors for their actions
So do a group of shareholders here have the ear of the court through Rule 24 application ..I am a little concerned in this sense ... this shareholders group is only recently and loosely formed - it has not entered into detailed communications with the company demanding Rule 60 application nor has it taken action to try and force the company by shareholders at company meetings for example - the group relies on the unanswered letter from one shareholder asking Amarin to take action - is this enough to argue before the court that this group of shareholders took all steps to demand the company act on Rule 60 but the company against the best interests of itsshareholders refused point blank to take any such action and thus the group has no alternative and given the time frames but to bring this action independently of the company ??
I can see some such being put forward
Or -does any of that matter and any party /shareholder can have a go at mixing it in a patent case ??
Marjac is very confident and rightly so he has researched this in detail
But we are as well to always explore what might be coming our way
Alm
Marjac
Totally agree
Mistake is the easier route and no need to examine how it got there
Fraud on the court - would need to show who and how it got there- hence the forensic examination -??
I do we want generics and their lawyers/experts to be able to suggest they did not crop it ??
Alm
Kiwi
Spot on right
Alm
Number Steven / Kiwi
Why did Amarin not bring Rule 60 ?
Examine -possible explanations
1-They have been advised it has absolutely no possibility of success -
comment -
whilst the basis of the Rule 60 application has taken time to develop and was perhaps therefore not immediately apparent in the aftermath of the Du decision one only needs to read the documentation now produced by Marjac and the team to reach the conclusion that the application was worth making - on any view it has some chance of success
So it is hard to believe Amarin and it’s lawyers were jointly of the view it had zero merit
2-They consider a Rule 60 directly conflicts with their other legal initiatives
Comment -
Infringement action -hard to see any basis upon which there can be any conflict so that Rule 60 diminishes in any way this initiative
Perhaps they consider success here is guaranteed and only Ten per cent of the USA market will be at risk and that such is uneconomic for sustainable GV - big balls to reach this conclusion and to abandon other initiatives??
3-Appeal against Du decision
Comment - the SC application it has been suggested has now no more than 1 percent chance of success ...so low that it would hardly persuade to abandon other initiatives- it may have been felt that at FC stage a higher hope existed and that was the horse they wished to back - again however difficult to see conflict between appeal lines of argument and Rule 60
With a current 1 percent chance of Supreme court success you only have to give Rule 60 1 percent chance to consider it equally worthy so why not bring such an action?
4-They considered bringing Rule 60 exposes Amarin and it’s lawyers to critical examination as to their conduct of the Du trial -which may lead to legal class action being brought against them
Do I need to comment ???
5-They are simply totally incompetent and never thought of doing it nor did their lawyers
Comment
Each of us will have our own view of their competency
Any other reasons ??? None immediately come to mind
Alm
Hindukush/ marjac
Has anyone looked at the exercise of cropping the table ... ??? from a forensic point of view ???
- how was the complete table introduced into the court record - ? electronic scan from a paper document ? Or a document introduced as an electronic document ?
How then was the table -with the cropped table -then introduced into the court record ??
It is logical that a version with that the whole table was electronically altered by reducing / cropping part from the electronic document
On discovery it will be possible to demand knowledge of .....
- on which computer it was cropped -on what date - by whom
And when it was entered into the court record - by whom on what date and from which computer
Who did it ?
Heinecke ? On his computer ... when ...did he send it to court or to the defendants lawyers
Or did someone on the defence lawyers team alter the document - and send it to the court and to whom else
Any accompanying e mails sending such ?
Discovery if complied with will reveal the forensic chain of creation and supply
E mails attaching will reveal who the parties were and what they were saying about the document
Failure to comply with discovery / or an attempt to cover up will
Nail as equally well as discovery being complied with
Either will help reveal the unclean hands .... and may clearly spell out in written form the motive
Hickma / heinecke / the lawyers -if we get past Rule 24 will know discovery requests will descend upon them ....
Alm
Marjac
And such has worked thus far in the favour of the Rule 24 being accepted - completely independent applicant /lawyers (you- god bless you )
So no opportunity to try and stir the pot of this is the same party bringing this application
But now it is live Amarin are forced to take one of the three positions you have described
Timing will be interesting here - if certiorari is refused then Rule 60 is the only game left in town - so what’s not to like to support as to the Rule 60 then (despite the embarrassing focus Rule 60 brings as to Amarin/ its then lawyers in Du trial- but they need get over that and get on board)
They have to lend total support
If Supreme Court grants then is there any possible legal argument conflict between running the two legal actions ?- guess that would require a deep dive / cross comparison of both
Simplistically Du applied the Prima facie obvious approach - the SC argument is she should not -and thus her finding of obviousness at the point she did in her reasoning is actually irrelevant ???-
(although Amarin could say that this finding is being challenged in separate proceedings brought by shareholders under Rule 60 (which they support ???- does this dilute their legal arguments position generally - ???they are weak for not bringing it themselves!! )
-irrelevant because she did not follow the Graham route correctly -and SC needs to reaffirm that the Graham route is the only route and bring the FC and DC completely back from the prima facie deviation
(then also to add insult to injury Du applied the weighing of secondary considerations which is a new precedent adverse to the principle that patents once granted are valid )- and SC need assert that there can be no such weighing permitted in patent cases
Interesting
But I don’t see immediately how these cases conflict - they can ride both horses ???
Alm
Rose
Absolutely correct - H and Dr R were the parties on the opposite side of Amarin in the Du proceedings which the Rule 60 is focused on.
Alm
Sts66- Marjac
no it does not present evidence in itself -but if Mr H is giving evidence as to what happened in the Du trial I would be tempted to try to get it admitted to show -from the very document he has created that he clearly knows the rules of scientific research and giving expert evidence - (it’s a concise written rule book written by H himself)
I would take him through each thing he did wrong in the trial and compare it line by line page by page in his rule book (that are relevant ) to demonstrate just how he crossed those lines which he sets out as sacrosanct....
it would stop him (or the generics )trying to argue out what the rules are ....
It might be a neat way to keep him on point and really illustrate how corrupt his evidence and actions were in the Du trial
In itself it proves nothing but it can be used to show he broke his own rule book
Alm
HK/marjac -Rule 60
The great part of all of this and thanks to the incredible work you and the team have undertaken is that this is all now in a public forum - a court of law
DU’s court of law
The spotlight is yet again firmly on her court of law
Instead of thinking they had gotten away with this incredible confidence trick which gave them their market for GV on a plate Hickma and Dr reddys have now had this deceit / fraud / deliberately planted mistake (call it whatever you will) thrown right back in their faces - along with their lawyers and their so called expert
The whole bunch of them have been publicly found out and totally exposed
- their credibility as honest Joe’s in anything they touch in the future in any court of law will be zero
They can huff puff and shout and scream all they wish ....... but no one who reads this case and the evidence of their wrong doing -and who is a right thinking judge / lawyer / member of the scientific community / expert /journalist /politician /or even just an honest Joe citizen of the good old US of A will see them for anything other than what they are -
Rogues who have cheated the system who could not give a damn as to the damage they caused through their fraud lies and deceipt
Du - has two choices -
but only one that will restore the honour and credibility of her and her court
So she must quite simply -Set her judgement aside
Alm
Hindukush /marjac
If I remember correctly pre the Du trial there was much comment about Heinck not actually being an expert at all
It might be worth doing a deep dive into what he has given expert opinion on previously - in which cases - on what subject matter - memory fades but he was I think very part time and worked for the Army ?? ( sorry maybe talking jibberish) there was much scathing comment that the generics could not find an expert to back there case so H was hauled in
But this may have been looked at thoroughly already
Alm
Hindukush
I hear you ... I am with you
Finding on mistake / finding on fraud
She may conclude there were both - but it is judicially easier I suspect on her part to call mistake rather than call fraud
I see the fraud and it is called out in the Rule 60 documents quite perfectly
Alm
Marjac
Letruthringout documents by Hencke- brilliant stuff if he is ever to be cross examined !!
Alm
Hindukush
I can’t see 1 applying - this application is not brought by Amarin - if Rule 24 is allowed - 1 is irrelevant - it is a new party that bring these matters before the court
As to generics - yes they could assert that - although it would run contrary to their case as presented in the Du hearing - they did rely on K and M to show obviousness - what else in reality did they otherwise rely upon ???
It depends on whether Du accepts that K and M in reality now fall away as supporting obviousness -
I suspect Du will want to seriously avoid reaching a decision based on fraud - if she can avoid it -
she will find it much easier to consider this as a decision reached by her by virtue of mistake - a mistaken interpretation / consequent reliance upon both K and Mori
Finding that there was fraud is the tough call when if she wants to she has the much easier route of mistake
I guess we would like the testimony / cropping to not go without censure but any victory is a victory
Alm
Hindukush - Rule 24. Undoubtedly should be allowed to intervene - I need no persuasion personally !!!
But Du could just say no ... base her decision on any spurious grounds she may care to create in her order
only route then is appeal that decision to FC
Which would be well worth doing even if failed because it delays Generics from having a clear playing field for a while longer
But I hope as you do / we all do that she will allow this to run ....
Alm
North ... thank you for your thoughts ...it’s a very complex to say the least with interaction impacts between the various proceedings
I agree that the new Rule 24/ Rule 60 proceedings must now come to the attention of the Supreme Court ... they should have knowledge of nature of those proceedings before any decision made on writ for certiorari ... they may consider as you say that the whole case in effect needs to be reopened in DC...as to issues raised by Rule 60 subject matter
This will be good for Amarin as further delays any clear playing field for generics
If Rule 24 succeeds then a new full hearing before DU as to Rule 60 will take a very long time to resolve - thereafter depending on outcome certiorari is either moot or remains to be decided upon
Also as to infringement proceedings (and again court will be made aware of Rule 60 case -if they get past app to dismiss (very likley) those proceedings could one suspects still run because as the Du decision was live as to its impact Amarin could still prove there was infringement and if win receive damages
- obviously if Rule 60 succeeds Gv is stopped in its tracks period from that point on
I wonder whether Amarins various lawyers as to infringement case and Supreme Court case ever thought this new complication would descend upon them?? (which is a separate consideration from as to why Amarin did not of itself pursue Rule 60)
—very interesting times provided Du does not just kick it as Rule 24
Alm
Marjac
But at what point would it become moot - after DC case finalised and thus before any appeal process started or after any appeal process is completed ... could be parked pending outcome of DC and FC ?
Amarin and their lawyers have to now think this aspect of it through if nothing else ...they must also consider it impossible to not now support this action - they have 3 choices - actively support it -do nothing- oppose it in some way
On what basis of logic can they not actually participate in supporting it ? And -Where does it place them in all of this if they do not support this ?
Alm
Marjac - thoughts
Du has a problem - she is going to find it impossible to refuse the Rule 24 application in the light of the Rule 60 application
But if she does the appeal against her Rule 24 decision would be to the FC - question is should this be pursued ?
Answer - yes - but as to timing and cost - I am trying to think this ahead ... you will no doubt have done so
If she grants Rule 60 hearing equally may generics seek to forstall it by appealing to FC against her allowing same prior to the Rule 60 hearing ?or would they await outcome of Rule 60 before appealing both if necessary ?
Or would they just roll over and say - we ain’t messing with Marjac no more - he’s the man !!
Du really does have a problem here ...in my view she will recognise that as she must now take away Mori and K the generics could not show obviousness
So let’s assume success on Rule 60 - so patents are restored and Amarins costs recovered (and yours / the groups )
The issue for generics and really this is for Hikma - H have to immediately withdraw from gv market -until they succeed in an appeal ....(if that were possible and it would take several months for an appeal to be heard) And at the same time still defending the existing infringement case to avoid triple damages ....
or abandon any idea of appeal and settle those infringement proceedings to avoid triple damages
But also Dr Reddys what will they do ... independently ... appeal. ... or just abandon all
The Rule 60 is the Golden nugget
Very interesting times
Alm
Hindukush
It is a wonderful thing to fight injustice -not to just roll over and accept an unjust defeat
Your words so eloquently set out exactly why this action was necessary right and desperately important
To attempt to right an appalling wrong
Your efforts and that of marjac and the rest of the team will never be forgotten - these are efforts for which you all can rightly always remain proud to have been a part of - Jarvis is a brilliant witness and a great addition to your team
I do care that this action is successful - but if it is not I do care and greatly appreciate that this action has been brought before the District Court and before the Judge - Judge Du -who on the kindest interpretation failed to understand that she was being duped into reaching a fallacious decision that wiped off 7 billion at a stroke of shareholders value
The mystery to me as a lawyer -given the sublime enormity of her decision -was that she so easily appears to have been duped
I consider that’ Amarin and it’s lawyers bear a heavy responsibility for their failures to recognise what was happening- and taking all steps to prevent such
If Amarin and it’s lawyers now support this action they will at least regain some respect from the shareholders who have brought this Rule 60 Challenge - and their resources knowledge and legal skill may yet have a further bearing on the weight of argument in support
If they do not - I would like - as a shareholder -to know in detail the reasons why
Alm
Marjac -you are absolutely right that Amarin should now fully support and by any means available to them the Rule 60 proceedings
I have tried to place the critical eye of logic and legal reasoning upon the content of the documentation and the conclusions that can be drawn from them
There is absolutely no logical or legal basis upon which this application can not be considered completely and utterly compelling
A masterpiece ... I and all of us are forever in your debt
Alm
Marjac ... final tweaks ... but when done... stand back ... enjoy that moment of pride in a job really well done ...
Proud of you ... it will be brilliant of that I am certain
Alm
Motion to dismiss as pointed out as to Hikma application for same is stock in trade for such cases but rarely succeeds ... so they go through the motions
As to severance ... my guess ...(uk lawyer not Usa)- they fear /expect a jury trial lies ahead ... and thus wish to shape the case
It may be considered that evidence against one defendant may not be admissible against another defendant - trial together ....all is considered by jury .. trial separation thus may limit evidence that Heathnet may have to contend with
No doubt Amarin will prefer all the parties to the infringement to be be boiled in the same pot (ie a jury trial )
Alm
Louiebelouie
Your pay day will come ... you deserve it ... we will keep the faith
Alm
Big News tomorrow....
The Rule 60 filing that Marjac and his ream are filing tomorrow may surprise us all as to press coverage
It is a very big story ... 7 billion shareholder loss caused by fraud on the court -imagine a good financial investigative journalist getting his hands on that one a David and Goliath battle if ever there was one
Marjac Hindukush and the team deserve all our respect and gratitude for their incredible efforts to bring this righteous battle before the courts
Alm
Marjac
It will be a work of which you can be rightly immensely proud
I am very much looking forward to reading it
Alm