BB -
In response to your post from last night - this certainly is an interesting one, but I guess that is consistent with AMRN's legal history.
It seems clear from your post that AMRN does not want the brief sealed. I will note, clients don't always understand the purpose of sealing documents, but I believe JT to be very informed, so I doubt that to be the case.
With respect to the contents of the brief - I would expect AMRN to remain within the confines of the ITC's decision. While I believe the theories that are discussed on this board to a fair degree (and certainly feel that AMRN has been aggrieved over and over again), the Court of Appeals has to be base its decision on the ITC's actions, not political or other underlying motives. That's the only way to win on appeal. And to that point, despite the exacting standard, I've read AMRN's submission and believe a strong case exists.
I've also taken a look at the docket this evening. Docket Entry 51 simply notes that AMRN is making a correction consistent with the pertinent rules, in removing the names of certain counsel from the brief's cover page and signature blocks. Docket Entry 52 is the "corrected" version filed by AMRN, which only incorporates that change. I don't believe there is anything more below the surface that we don't see. The other parties to this lawsuit would certainly object to any other corrections made "out of time".
AI
Market Data 
Markets 
