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.
marjac-
To say Du is incompetent because she didn't rule correctly based upon the facts of the case is fair game but it's a load a bullshit to say her ruling should have considered the consequences of Amarin's stock price. All these posts speculating on her motives is bullshit.
It's not her fault the law is so asinine that invalidating the marine patent allows generics an end-around to sell Vascepa under the guise of the Reduce-It label. Now that's EVIL!
marjac-
Thanks for the explanation. It's appreciated.
Did the media or doctors predict the possible consequences would show up after 15 days? Lets see what happens after 30 days.
Hopefully the few folks who are not taking COVID-19 seriously won't have much of a impact.
marjac-
Sorry for being obtuse here but how does this amount to anything more than cheer leading?
Doesn't the appeal essentially resolve around convincing the FC that the secondary considerations should have maintained the obviousness patent? What can these 3rd parties do outside of what Singer will be presenting that is germane to the case?
There be be no new evidence, no new testimony, just what Covington boxed us into at the DC.
mrmainstreet-
I agree it would be great if the USPTO could/would file a amicus brief so they can defend their validation of the patent. But other than that how influential can these amicus briefs be if they're not directly pertinent to the case?
Although it's true if Du's ruling is allowed to stand it would have a negative effect on the drug industry but how can that in itself be used as a persuasive argument?
Amarininvestor-
Thanks to HDG and your take on it this is the best I felt by our chances since the ruling - let's say I'm cautiously optimistic.
Elf-
Hooey. If Covington would have put forth the effort that HDG and others did on Obviousness then Du would have probably ruled differently. Instead we got a limited convoluted argument from them. There's a reason why they were taken off the case.
Enough time has passed by that one should no longer be guided by their narrow political views.
83838-
Did you remember to list HBO/John Oliver
Coronavirus V: Last Week Tonight with John Oliver (HBO)
Speaking of a derangement Syndrome case study, perhaps look in the mirror
It would be extremely cruel to win on obviousness to only lose on infringement. Hopefully Judge Du's reasoning is beyond approach on infringement.
-STS
"When I read that people think this is going to go from $7 to $30 if AMRN wins the appeal I just shake my head - sheer lunacy"
I don't expect the PPS to jump to $30 on the news but why is it so inconceivable to get that on a BO?
Is losing one year that much of a penalty?
Rose-
Or JT like most of us before the patent ruling thought winning the patent case was the last issue/hurdle to be resolved. And he probably wasn't expecting a pandemic either.
I just hope in the worst case scenario - appeal loss (and perhaps the most likely one) he can get still get value for the EU market and most of us can get whole again.
My preference, like many others is a BO with a CVR for the U.S. but the timing of EU approval/terms may be too much of a hindrance for that scenario.
Michael,
I have asked a couple of times what determines if the appellate court reverses the ruling or if the case is sent back to the lower court for reconsideration. I have yet to receive an answer.
The case is about the Marine label. The Reduce-It trial results are irrelevant in that context.
The law is blind/dumb to the fact that doctors will prescribe generic Vascepa for Reduce-It indications under the guise of the Marine label.
As long as the generics themselves don't promote beyond the Marine label they are not infringing. I know, it's maddening.
"One, I take your point that Covington may have demonstrated resignation, but I don't credit the opposition's strength..."
He was talking about the defendant's counsel, which would not be Covington. You don't even know that Amarin was the plaintiff but you know with 100% certainty they will win on appeal.
raf-
That's surprising. Thanks!
Hopefully COVID-19 doesn't out do those numbers over a year's time. Well obviously COVID-19 deaths will end up being a lot higher.
Remember though the COVID-19 cases are localized over a short period of time. Ex: NYC.
TTE-
Judge Du is not a trained clinical scientist and it's up to the legal teams to convince her of their argument. In hindsight we were just plain out lawyered and the defendants had more persuasive witnesses even though we were righteous.
YOU and others said before the verdict it would come down to expert testimony.
-Dukesking
Actually it's a limited series (more episodes to come) and I thought it was very good too.
The part about if China would have clamped down 3 weeks earlier is pretty depressing as this whole mess probably could have been averted. One doctor was threatened with imprisonment if he wouldn't stop warning his colleagues about the virus.
And I would add it's a lot more contagious than the Flu. A virus that's highly contagious but with a low mortality rate is more deadly than one that's not very contagious but with a high mortality rate.
I guess we got both ends of the spectrum covered on this board.
JL-
Quote: "Keep your sunny side up...Pleasant dreams... "
I'll try but Judge Du's ruling and the virus impact is a heck of a one-two punch. :)
The numbers are wrong and deaths are not ramping up. Got it.
Yeah, I didn't see that coming (note heavy sarcasm).
STS-
Although I appreciate your heartfelt post I don't want to go down with the ship. If an equitable deal can be made for Europe or a not so equitable deal for Europe but with a CVR for the U.S. market then swallow your pride and accept it. Negotiating a deal holding the bag after an appeal loss would be like swimming in shark infested waters.
Publicly Amarin's plan is then to compete with the generics with their own generic Vascepa in the U.S. and have partnerships in Europe. That sounds like a nightmare within a nightmare.
Sorry, I don't know, hopefully soon
Perhaps raf can explain it in his Hungarian voice
Hopefully he only accepts cases he thinks he can win or settle.
sts66-
I was thinking BP may want EMA approval before doing a BO as the scope of the R-IT indication is unknown. I guess you don't consider a CVR for the U.S. market a feasible option. The timing of EMA approval and patent resolution does complicate things.
I just cringe at the thought of holding Amarin when the appeal decision comes down.
Will Lar-
Sounds like you're hoping for judicial activism (assuming you realize that argument is irrelevant), hey I'm all for it but that's one long shot.
Kiwi-
"Regarding Souths very detailed post ....isnt one of the restrictions in the appeal the following ....Arguments NOT presented by a party during the trial are deemed to have been waived ....so while Souths arguments have merit ...we may not be able to use them anyway."
That's my understanding and the point of my last post. An appeal is not a "do over" for Amarin. No wonder Amarin got new counsel.
Southpacificislander-
Would Amarin's lawyers even be allowed to use this line of arguement:
"I propose counting the unmet conditions for approvability as an approximate for lack of obviousness"
if they didn't use it at the trial? My understanding is new evidence/arguments are not allowed at the appellate court.
Sounds like you're making the case that Amarin's lawyer's missed an opportunity to prove their obviousness case further.
Thanks, that seems logical
Some here feel very strongly that a BO won't happen till after the appeal process.
Is it really that unrealistic to have a CVR as part of a BO deal? i.e. taking into account a successful Appeal.
I guess there is the timing of EU approval to take into account.
Is $4.68 your recent purchase price? OUCH if you think EU will only bring $4.68x2 to the PPS.
This needs to be snuffed out pronto.
The appellate court is NOT going to consider indirect inducement into the Reduce-It label by the generics anymore than the circuit court did.
Curious that the legal minds on this board don't feel the need to correct JL on this point. I figured HDG was biting at the bit to do so which he did indirectly.
Sorry I can't resist, not only do you drink the Kool-aid you marinate in it.
ziploc_1-
"I agree this should be a relevant factor, worthy of consideration as a one of the "secondary considerations..I doubt if it's ever been used as a secondary consideration...but I feel it could be/should be a part of this case...it makes too much sense to be ignored."
If this was allowed to be any factor then the case would have been dismissed after the Reduce-It results were known. As crazy as it sounds the case was strictly about the marine patents and not the consequences it would have on the Reduce-It label.
Why in the heck would the generics agree to such a deal when they can effectively profit from the Reduce-It sales, their real motive for infringing on the Marine label?
Best course of action (IMO) is to sell the company and get what we can for the European market and a CVR for the US market.
Some say it's not feasible but I say a price can be reached, it's just a matter of willing to do it.
Invalidating the Marine patents should be of minor consequence given the the Reduce-It patents.
The tragedy of the law is not so much Judge Du's ruling invalidating the marine patents but the law NOT taking into account that this ruling "effectively" allows the generics to infringe on the Reduce-It label.
Kiwi, I thought the poor folks were supposed to get the checks first, so how did you get your check before me?
ILT (or anyone), what determines if the case is overturned or reverted back to the lower court for retrial. Obviously I prefer the former. TIA