Amarin's attorneys did a partial summary judgement because they were working on limiting what could be introduced at the trial. They were working on narrowing the scope of the arguments. The other attorneys just filed an argument (without merit) saying that the case should be dismissed.
So far, claims construction went clearly in Amarin's favor. During discovery, witness testimony from Hikma's side was very poor. Because their witnesses did not testify regarding several sections of the law and how Amarin's claims are invalid, the judge should rule that Hikma can not bring up these other sections of the law and ambush Amarin's attorneys during the trial. If the judge rules in favor of Amarin's partial summary judgement, Hikma will be more likely to settle because their chance of winning at a trial would be reduced. If the judge rules in favor of Amarin's partial summary judgement, Hikma lawyers could only use obviousness as a defense.
Something else that has moved in Amarin's favor recent. JT recently said “The court has allowed us to introduce the results of the REDUCE-IT study, which we think supports the uniqueness of Vascepa.”.
put these two last things together. If the judge rules in favor of Amarin's partial summary judgement Hikma lawyers could only use obviousness as a defense and Amarin can use reduce-ti results. I am not a patent attorney or even an attorney but common sense tells me that there is no way that Hikma can claim that the results of Icosapent ethyl have been obvious. This is where Amarin starts quoting Adam F. and Physicians on the advisory committee who were genuinely surprised by the results.
IMO, we need to focus on the FDA. TEVA settled and Hikma is putting up a really poor defense. IMO after looking at this, we do not need to focus our time on this.
I would think the next catalyst will be when the judge rules on the PSJ and the SJ. IMO, it should be a good day.
