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.
I understand seeking stock. Why prepay with such huge fee? Raise the money in December, pay off in January, save $450k
Sweet!
Still waiting for 55.
My 55 never got filled, don't tell me it's going to get away from me :)
Let me get his straight... They diluted stock to pay the debt off by 6 weeks early... And paid $400k+ penalty for prepayment?
Then why pre-pay?
I've been looking at it over the weekend. Book value at $10? How come it's trading at half that?
Gimme 55.. gimme 50... Will gobble 10 mil at 40
Hahaha got it )))
I'm in no rush to get back it, but would love to at some point. I would even consider 70s and 80s, but again as I said, no rush
Were we supposed to be? The company's been saying "EMA approval early next year " since the summer.
Thanks. Away from computer, not sure how to post Ihub images with my phone. ST is somewhat more straightforward in that regard.
I posted a screen shot of actual ruling on stock twits.
Anyhow, at least Form 4 was for something, like a milestone achievement (sarcasm)
Not sure either. What I do want to see, though, is refills growing each and every week. No reason in the world they shouldn't be!
So smth like $130 per 30 day supply
The company's revenue is, on average, $1.10 per capsule
Mmmmm.... Wowzee!
So, you're saying that patents and straightforward criteria are more important than an evening of studying about "fish oil"? Ha!
I'm sure bio pharma community will appreciate this brief, as well as the whole case in general. I'm surprised we don't seem to be getting any traction in the media.
Yes, same feeling here. After all, we've already lost, basically, so anything helps.
We have nothing more to lose and everything to gain if this is taken into consideration.
And, if they truly didn't read it the first time - shame on them. I'm disgusted at the thought.
Someone on ST mentioned the filer used to clerk for Judge Newman. Interesting twist!
Yes, their intros, and all of the logistical stuff, like certifications are dated October 16, but their actual statements are dated May.
No problem!
I guess now I owe some money to PACER. Gosh, free access to court filings is apparently not that free )))
Will have to sell couple of shares now.
Spot on!
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization (“BIO”) is the largest trade
association representing biotechnology companies, academic institutions,
biotechnology centers, and related organizations across the United States and in more than 30 countries. Many of BIO’s members are small companies at the forefront of medical innovation.
BIO’s members have great interest in this case and the standards applied
under the Patent Act to determine whether a court should invalidate duly-issued U.S. patent claims as obvious. BIO’s members expand the boundaries of science daily through their research and development of biomedicine, diagnostics, agricultural, and environmental products and services. That research and development is possible because of investment based on the Patent Act’s promise of exclusionary rights in validly patented subject matter. That investment results in innovative products that are used to improve the quality of life for millions of
people worldwide. But if investors fear that courts are not reviewing obviousness consistently or that marketable biotechnology patents will be prone to later invalidation, future innovation will suffer from less investment. BIO’s members, therefore, seek consistency and clarity in the application of the law of obviousness to enhance predictability under the Patent Act.
BIO has no direct stake in this appeal and takes no position on the validity of the patents at issue. No counsel for a party authored this brief in whole or in part, and no such counsel or party, nor any person other than the amicus or its counsel, made a monetary contribution intended to fund the preparation or submission of this brief. This brief is solely the work of BIO; it reflects the consensus view of BIO’s members, but not necessarily the views of any individual member. BIO
certifies that all parties to this appeal have consented to BIO’s filing of this brief.
INTRODUCTION
The Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. John Deere Co. of Kansas City,
383 U.S. 1, 17-18 (1966) identified four factors that collectively inform whether a claim would have been obvious. See KSR Int’l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 406 (2007). Under Graham, evidence relating to each factor must be considered before a court renders its ultimate legal conclusion. Since that decision, however, this Court has developed two distinct approaches to the role played by the fourth Graham factor (objective indicia) in relation to the other three. In many cases, all
four factors are weighed together in totality, and the burden of persuasion never shifts from the defendant. However the panel in this case affirmed the “prima facie” framework, where a determination of obviousness is reached based on the first three factors and the fourth is then weighed in rebuttal.
Panels of this Court have raised concerns about inconsistences between the two approaches, but no panel has successfully reconciled them. See, e.g., In re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent Litig., 676 F.3d 1063, 1076 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (collecting cases); Intercontinental Great Brands LLC v. Kellogg N. Am. Co., 869 F.3d 1336, 1345-46 (Fed. Cir. 2017). The continued use of two, inconsistent approaches has created uncertainty in the law and controversy in the lower courts. En banc action is necessary to reconcile this Court’s two frameworks into a single, unified approach that gives appropriate weight to all relevant evidence before reaching a legal conclusion on obviousness. While the need for en banc action is great, the task for the Court is minimal. This is not a controversial situation—the Court need not create new law. Everyone agrees that objective evidence must be considered before reaching a final legal conclusion on obviousness. Thus, the Court need only endorse a framework and clarify its application.
20-1723
United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
STATEMENT OF INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
The Biotechnology Innovation Organization (“BIO”) is the largest trade association representing biotechnology companies, academic institutions, biotechnology centers, and related organizations across the United States and in more than 30 countries. Many of BIO’s members are small companies at the forefront of medical innovation.
Amarin’s petition raises the question of how courts should evaluate the
obviousness of a claim. Since the Supreme Court’s decision in Graham v. John Deere, this Court’s obviousness jurisprudence has evolved into two dueling frameworks. First, there is the “totality framework,” which evaluates obviousness by making a single determination based on all of the relevant evidence. Second, there is the “prima facie framework,” which evaluates obviousness through a twostep process by which evidence relevant to objective indicia are only considered after a prima facie obviousness determination is made based on evidence relevant to the first three Graham factors. The differences between the tests are not merely a matter of semantics—in application, they tend to weigh certain types of evidence, namely evidence of objective indicia, differently.
And this difference can be outcome determinative. Because both tests are now endorsed by this Court’s precedent, only an en banc decision can reconcile them into a single, consistent approach to obviousness that weighs all evidence of obviousness appropriately.
As an amicus, BIO can offer a valuable perspective regarding the impact of dueling standards for obviousness on innovation. BIO’s members are innovators that expand the boundaries of science on a daily basis through their research and development of biomedicine, diagnostics, agricultural, and environmental products and services. Their research and development is possible because of investment based on the Patent Act’s promise of exclusionary rights for a limited period of time in validly patented subject matter. If investors fear that courts are not reviewing obviousness consistently or that marketable biotechnology patents will be prone to later invalidation, future biotechnology innovation will suffer from less investment.
In this regard, BIO believes that it can provide the Court with perspectives that might not be provided by the parties
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, BIO respectfully requests that the Court grant this motion for leave to file the accompanying brief in support of neither party.
I was able to download the brief. Uploaded to Drive, please check it out.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1P9xz-nHorGjUkg4Fyy6xigabe4ZVw6L8/view?usp=sharing
09/03/2020 78 JUDGMENT. Affirmed. Issued pursuant to Federal Circuit Rule 36. Terminated on the merits after oral argument. COSTS: Costs taxed against Appellant(s). Mandate to issue in due course. For information regarding costs, petitions for rehearing, and petitions for writs of certiorari click here. [719299] [20-1723, 20-1901] [JCA] [Entered: 09/03/2020 09:09 AM]
10/02/2020 79 Petition for panel rehearing, for en banc rehearing filed by Appellants Amarin Pharma, Inc. and Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited. Service: 10/02/2020 by email. [726088] [20-1723] [Jonathan Singer] [Entered: 10/02/2020 10:37 AM]
10/06/2020 80 18 paper copies of Doc. No. [79] received from Appellants Amarin Pharma, Inc. and Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited. [727079] [JAB] [Entered: 10/06/2020 03:19 PM]
10/08/2020 81 COMBINED OPENING BRIEF & APPX (FCR 30(d)) FILED by EPADI II. Service: 10/08/2020 by email. [727534] [20-1723]. The motions for leave to file this proposed brief and appendix have been denied. See Doc. No. [86]. [Michael Kasanoff] [Entered: 10/08/2020 01:46 AM]
10/08/2020 82 MOTION of EPADI II for leave to file amicus brief in support of Amarin on petition for panel rehearing [79], petition for en banc rehearing [79]. Service: 10/08/2020 by email. [727535] [20-1723] [Michael Kasanoff] [Entered: 10/08/2020 01:50 AM]
10/08/2020 83 MOTION of EPADI II leave to file a supplemental appendix. Service: 10/08/2020 by email. [727536] [20-1723] [Michael Kasanoff] [Entered: 10/08/2020 01:51 AM]
10/08/2020 84 Entry of appearance for Michael S. Kasanoff as counsel for EPADI II. Service: 10/08/2020 by email. [727537] [20-1723]--[Edited 10/08/2020 by JAB to correct filer] [Michael Kasanoff] [Entered: 10/08/2020 01:53 AM]
10/08/2020 85 Certificate of Interest for EPADI II. Service: 10/08/2020 by email. [727538] [20-1723] [Michael Kasanoff] [Entered: 10/08/2020 02:00 AM]
10/13/2020 86 ORDER filed denying EPADI II's motions for leave to file an amicus brief in support of rehearing [82] and for leave to file a separate appendix [83]. By: Per Curiam. Service as of this date by the Clerk of Court. [728176] [MJL] [Entered: 10/13/2020 12:39 PM]
10/16/2020 87 MOTION of Amicus Curiae Biotechnology Innovation Organization for leave to file an amicus curiae brief. Service: 10/16/2020 by email. [729532] [20-1723] [Rachel Elsby] [Entered: 10/16/2020 04:48 PM]
How does one find Amarin case in PACER? What should I be entering in a search field? I'm trying by case # 20-1723 but it says doesn't exist
Just got my token via mail today and trying things out...
Ok, I got my answer. Well well well, I guess I'm not selling anytime soon.
Woa! What's happened?
If you go to Wayback Machine (archive.org) and look for Hikma.com, they had Vascepa news on the main page shortly after Sep 3 ruling.
No point it removing from page now, it's already evidence.
Ok, so they state 1.1B whereas Amarin says for Hikma's anda indication it was roughly $70M?
Wow, that's a huge discrepancy. Intent to infringe?
Can you explain what those Vascepa lunches look like? Are they targeting patients or other physicians? How successful? Etc.
i'll buy some at 50, if it drops there. No worries.
I guess the question is, would they consider issuing as a formal PR? That should be well received by the market.
Maybe Monday morning?
Also, I will predict JT will read it verbatim on the CC next month
Honestly though, the longer the better for AMRN
So basically they said "market for trig above 500 is $70M / year for V.
Anything above that is freaking infringement. Am I reading this right???
Heck yes! Going on offensive!
i didn't read any of his work, but it's all very obvious, so i think he should forfeit all his patents and put my name instead.