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.
That's all that matters to him in that bubble of his
I hope the stars line up sooner for a BO deal.
Thanks for your perspective!
I wonder where we would be if Marjac represented Amarin in the initial Du trial?
Buy Out
Thanks for the uplifting post Sleven! We still have some cards left to play. Merry Christmas and happy prosperous new year to you too.
When I made my investment I was fairly confident Judge Du would rule in favor of Amarin. I remember where I was and what I was doing when I heard the ruling. What I'm left with is hoping for the best.
I'm hoping Amarin will eventually get back to the teens regardless of which way the litigation goes. i.e. succeeding in other markets with patent protection.
It's so depressing to see what seems like every drug under the sun getting heavily advertised but not Vascepa. So I do understand the significance of Marjac being successful but he's the underdog.
Are those folks following P-II? Presumably if anyone is paying attention it'll be doctors, hopefully they'll be more likely to prescribe V than send them to Dollar Tree for fish oil.
"Smart or desperate?"
Delusional
I hope you're wrong about Amarin sticking with GIA in EU.
$7 a share! That's what it has come down to?
Why would anyone stick around for that when there are better opportunities elsewhere.
marjac-
So the obviousness patents go back into the orange book and are considered valid again?
What happens if some other drug manufacturer tries to sell gVascepa which prompts a lawsuit by Amarin? Is the defendant not allowed to cite Judge Du's ruling?
circuitcity-
I thought any settlement would be the result of the defendants not acting acting on the invalidated obviousness patents.
I don't see how you can undo the court's determination other than a higher court ruling the lower court "erred" in determining the obviousness patents were invalid.
raf-
TBH, the thought of this case going back to the lower court is more misery than I can handle.
I figure if the panel understands the severity and consequences of the errors made by Judge Du there's only one conclusion which is the patents should have never been invalidated.
The 35% I gave for affirm is for whatever B.S. they may come up with to justify Du's ruling.
As JL would say
GFY.....
As a long time board member you should know there is a zero chance this board will comply with your request to not personally insult Judge Du.
Reverse 65
Affirm 35
Remand 0
Settle 0
It sounds like it would be beneficial for Singer to reference this case as precedent???
My gosh, the ability of A.F. to get under the skin of some members from a single tweet is uncanny. But he has been a thorn in our side from the very beginning.
But apparently she did even though she shouldn't have.
Hopefully it resonates with at least 2 of the 3 judges at the appellate court.
But it didn't resonate with the Judge.
If the Mori study was the centerpiece of the defendants case (Obviousness) then Covington should have left no stone unturned in dismantling their analysis. i.e., point out the statistical errors. Again, if that was the case.
If you know opposing counsel and their expert witnesses are giving out misleading/false information aren't you obligated to you refute it (if that was the case)? You can't assume the Judge will see the study as being irrelevant due to the sample size and difference in population.
Michael-
I was trying to answer mrmainstreet's question.
And I could do without the cheap shot. I've been long since 8/2011.
Not so much the contents of the letter but the can of worms it would open up.
From the Markman article that louieblouie posted
"The risk for Amarin from trying to inject Dr. Bhatt’s article at this late stage is that, given all the evidentiary and admissibility issues, it muddies Amarin’s narrative, liquidates Amarin’s credibility (given the argument is likely waived) and may be a distraction from what remains Amarin’s principle argument—namely, that Mori addressed the wrong patient population. As discussed above in our original post, Amarin’s opening brief was a clear and focused on three main arguments. To put this another way, when you are arguing an appeal, you don’t have the judges' limitless attention, and raising a new argument that is potentially waived could be a distraction that does more damage than good."
"They will argue that Dr. Bhatt’s conclusions are not, in fact, incontrovertible. On the contrary, they will point out that their own expert, Dr. Heinecke, testified that the data in Mori—including the comparisons to baseline without the differential analysis between EPA and DHA—was sufficient to show that the patents, in combination with other art, were obvious. The generics will also point out that, although Amarin attempted to distinguish Mori on numerous grounds, it did not challenge Dr. Heinecke’s opinion on the grounds that Mori lacked the differential analysis that Dr. Bhatt now highlights as so critical. Having failed to mount that challenge at trial, the generics will argue that Amarin waived the right to do so on appeal. The generics will also argue that they have not had the opportunity to conduct discovery around Dr. Bhatt’s article, including potentially deposing its authors, but at the very least having the opportunity to provide their own expert’s opinion on Dr. Bhatt’s analysis. They will also point out that as a potentially interested party, Amarin’s introduction of Dr. Bhatt’s article is self-serving."
raf-
Please, give him more credit than that. He was persuaded by the arguments made by the author.
And frankly speaking for myself, they were a hell of a lot more persuasive than any of the arguments made by the board's legal experts.
It sounds like Bhatt's paper could potentially do more harm than good. And it's so bizarre that Bhatt emailed his paper to the court. I mean is this actually true? It seems inconceivable that Singer would have sanctioned that.
Tal10-
If you don't move on you're the one who is going to continue to live a living nightmare. And please, not agreeing with your certainty doesn't make one naive.
Thanks!
From Yee note:
"Based on comments from the authors, key people at AMRN and others have been made aware of this and it is possible the information may find its way into the AMRN appeal case."
We would all be better off with perspectives from legal experts who don't have an investment in Amarin.
On the face of it I don't see how this paper gets considered by the appeals court. The position of "they'll find a way" doesn't cut it for me.
I agree with the first paragraph but everything after that sounds like wishful thinking especially the part about much rather being in Amarin's shoes.
Whalatane-
You appear to think our chances of prevailing on appeal is now around 50%. Why the optimism? Singer's brief?
sstyles,
It was the time of the month (Judge Du indicated she would rule at the end of the month) where we all thought the ruling could come at any moment and it's no secret MRC is against Amarin. So no, I don't wonder.
Meowza-
Yes, I prefer he wouldn't waste his time responding to those wearing thick rose color glasses with their crazed political agendas and dipstick conspiracy theories.
Heaven forbid if he takes the time to do a thorough in dept analysis of Singer's brief.
jomama9231-
I was hoping you would get a rebuttal to your point (below) to put me at ease
"To your point 2 I am still not at ease. It was turned down but when the patent examiner overcame it they clearly wrote that they only overcame it bc of ApO-B. I went back and read it all. Therefore I don’t know that the point singer makes is a valid point, but I defer to the lawyers or someone more knowledgeable than me. It seems if they turned it down and later accepted it in full it would have more weight but bc they still found it obvious to reduce TG and not raise LDL it’s tough (for me) to get past that point."
I see we're back into the cesspool with the latest posts
fsulevine-
That's just not true - Judge Du fully understood that the generics would sell under the guise of the Reduce-It indication if she invalidated the Marine obviousness patent.
What she meant by nothing changes with regards to the Reduce-it is well exactly that but she fully realized that the generics would "effectively" sell generic Vascepa under the Reduce-It label.
Unfortunately she wasn't supposed to take this end around into consideration and neither is the appellate court. Hopefully the procedure errors will be enough for the appellate court either because the judges truly believe that's the case or use the errors as an excuse to not allow the generics to steal from Amarin.
I just hope he has a history of being right.
postes
His political views very much influence his legal reasoning
Don't forget there will probably be Amicus briefs on behalf of the generics, I presume from consumer advocate groups. We're on the wrong end of the stick if this becomes a public relations battle, consumers care about cheaper prices and are not going to care about our portfolio or how unfair this is to Amarin.
The appellate court is supposed to determine if the lower court correctly invalidated the obviousness patent. Outside of that is activism/political on both sides of the spectrum although most on this board are blind to the other side.
Don't get me wrong I'll take it if the court favors Amarin.
Megc-
"support a very reasonable likelihood of potentially over-turning"
"are big mistakes and he thinks it could be a 50% chance of overturning the District Court"
These consultants sure don't like to go out on a limb with their predictions. What a play on words.