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.
One thing Singer noted in his briefs is that if Mori rendered patents obvious, why was Lovaza (spelling) launched 4 years later for TG > 500.
That makes no sense. I’m a simpleton, can someone please answer that question?
Yes, but patent win is needed or US market is toast. Evaporate does not change that fact
I was referring to the US situation
Oops, my bad!
Can lightning strike twice in the same place?
The time since March is so reminiscent of the R-It days. Checking this board daily for something from JL to fortify my faith. Watching, waiting.
Then, that glorious day in Sep 2019! V had done it! Financial worries over, retirement was set. I had arrived! Those of us here since the early days had truly captured that lightning in a bottle!
To stubborn (stupid?) to take profits as greater fortunes lie ahead. With faith in our justice system to get the obvious correct, I held firm.
Whoops, enter a rogue (inept, biased, crooked - you choose) NV judge. Bam, in the blink of an eye, back to financial stress! OJ had once again been found not guilty.
Since then, I check this board daily for something from our legal experts to restore my faith in our justice system. I watch and I wait..
Can lightning strike twice?
Something I think the great JL has been saying for years! Where is he?
We can hope, but that doesn’t change what I posted. We either settle or win. Otherwise, Evaporate changes nothing
Huh? It’s 18 months
A change to R-It label won’t change anything with generic situation. Marine label is the key for them. It’s their path to reap the rewards for any hard work AMRN does. Have to win appeal
Capt - my gut feel is no. Marine label will always be there for generics to use as a vehicle for infringing on R-It label. Or, any revised label to reflect Evaporate
Yes, I was also thinking that. Her mind was made up from the get go. She was gonna craft her ruling to fit her agenda regardless of the evidence
Even if not cropped I doubt Du would have understood.
Awaken me when they complete a CV outcome trial
LBL - Appreciate the info! Unless we win the appeal, this is probably better news for the generics than us?
Pretty sure it wasn’t intellectual as she’s a little short in that department:)
HK - according to Du(fus), 1973 would be way too outdated
Sorry about that 8. I could really care less as well.
Miller - everyone's still waiting for your take on why we will lose the appeal. I assume you have read the briefs?
Harry Reid was/is total scum
GG - why don't you believe the CAFC will buy/understand the 2 patient population issue?
Isaeed - well done! Very thorough and complete. Now let’s pray for equally thorough, intelligent, honest judges
Yea, I’d like to believe diet helps. Like you, my wife and I eat only organic. Fortunately for me, wife is really into healthy cooking!
Card - agree on immunity. Aren’t their other factors beyond genetics that affect immunity (e.g., can diet play a role)?
Marjac - Thx. Good to see you posting by the way!
Guess I’ll have to read Markman again. Given the known differences between TG < 500 and > 500 I still can’t fathom any basis for affirmation as no prior studies looked at TG > 500.
John - Good read! Maybe I view things as too black and white. But it seems (and your post bolsters my view) that if the judges do their job, we got this. If the panel is biased or lazy then maybe we don’t.
Marjac - Thx, but is there enough to affirm? DU’s prima facie conclusion is complete crap based on nothing but errors. Her procedural/SC errors speak for themselves.
Guess my point is that IF the panel does their job, nothing in DU’s rule warrants affirmation.
Du committed multiple errors
FWIW - I don’t get too hung up on the percentages. I would expect the success rate of appeals to be low. If success were high, what would that say of the district courts?
That said, hopefully success is high in the instances like ours where the DC totally screwed the pooch
Thx Raf
Ah, Ok
Zip- I hear you. I was referring to the factual side of the case when I said she got nothing correct. On that note, I stand by; inept, biased or corrupt.
I’m not saying she is corrupt. But, other than my three choices, how does one explain her complete whiffing on the prima facie front?
Yes she did (feck things up). Technically, legally and, for us, financially. Was reading briefs again last night. Stunning really. I don't think she got one single thing correctly.
Du is either; 1) completely inept, 2) so biased she cannot see the truth, or 3) corrupt.
None are good choices.
Singer could say “your honor, the prior art relied upon by the DC to reach its conclusion studied patients who did not have the disease addressed by the patents in question” or something to that effect.
Excellent stuff HK. You are a must read! Thx
Never mind the SCs, I can never get past the fact that the ignorant wench found anything clear and convincing with studies that did not even involve subjects with the patented condition.
Call me crazy but, WTF?
Thx!
GG - apologize as this may have been discussed but, did anyone look into the panel that heard the BMS case? Were they pro or anti patent?
I don’t find this very encouraging:
“Finally, BMS argues that the district court improperly compared the weight of the different secondary considerations against each other when it summarized that the factors were “mixed.” J.A. 152. We understand the district court to be noting that some categories of evidence simply were not as helpful to BMS's case as others. We do not read the opinion as suggesting that unhelpful evidence somehow diminished the strength of the more persuasive forms of evidence.”
What’s to stop them from concluding the same in our case?
Wow! Thx RAF!