Dear Board: Do not rely on jaspirr, for legal advise. You don't know his credentials (law school/firm) and success as attorney. He is totally wrong in his analysis. Just look at amrn sp (similar to sprint whose sp is down b/c attorneys general litigation) and you see wall street IS CONCERNED that we can lose litigation. If defendants chances were so low as jaspirr says the stock would be higher. A hedge should be made--It is impossible to predict a judge's decision.
Example of jaspirr wrong analysis: RE: the motions in limine:
["1st negative: (Defendants' motion granted in part) The Court mostly agrees with Plaintiffs, but also agrees with Defendants that Plaintiffs’ experts will not be allowed to express opinions at trial that were not included in their expert reports. Plaintiffs’ experts are prohibited from testifying about the rat and mice studies at trial to the extent they did not rely on those studies in their expert reports.]
jaspirr is wrong when he states: "This makes zero difference to either side. These are just general principles of litigation. An expert cannot testify about a topic at trial if the expert didn't put it in their written report. The Judge is just reiterating what the rules are."
B/c the court stated: "A motion in limine... is a preliminary motion whose outcome lies entirely within the discretion of the Court." it is up to the judge's discretion to grant or deny such motions. It makes 100% difference if the experts can discuss other topics not in their report.
[2nd negative:(Plaintiffs' motion denied): "More substantively, the Court agrees with Defendants that while Defendants bear the burden of establishing obviousness by clear and convincing evidence, and that burden never changes, it is easier to carry if Defendants rely on evidence of obviousness that was not presented to the patent office—such as evidence that Dr. Lavin later backed away from key factual assertions he made in the Lavin Declarations.']
jaspirr is wrong when he states: "This one has some substance. Amarin moved to exclude testimony regarding Dr. Lavin. I don't have that testimony but it is clear to me that it relates to the patent office: what the patent office wss told when the patent was issued, as compared to what the parties now know, about obviousness. In sum, the generics are allowed to present additional evidence of "obviousness" which gives them a higher chance of winning that argument."
This motion is more than 'some substance"--it is essential for defendants to use dr. lavin's testimony as the court ITSELF stated:
'It is easier to carry if Defendants rely on evidence of obviousness that was not presented to the patent office"
[3rd negative (Plaintiffs' motion denied): While the Court does not rule today on the proper priority date for the patents in suit, Defendants may make a priority date argument at trial—because the Court sees no good reason to rule to the contrary.]
jaspirr is very wrong when he stated: "This is another non-issue. No ruling by the Judge. Just reiterating the rules and delaying the decision until trial."
It was a great victory for defendants that the court allows them to make a priority date argument and push forward the patent dates to their filing date of (February 2009) not March 2008 so it can show prior art before feb. 2009.
jaspirr's statement: "I'd be hesitant to even say this gives generics a 1% higher chance of winning." IS RIDUCLUOS
AI
