Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[Older/Poorer/Wiser]

Document 333

Section B "Conclusions of Law" on pages 35-49 details how prior cases and applicable law details induced infringement.

This is the Defendants filing, so is obviously written to advance their arguments, but is there a corresponding Amarin response that picks these apart?

As these read, they grant much latitude to a generic who does not explicitly encourage, via labeling or other promotion, prescribing a
'me-too' generic medication for patent-protected uses. In fact, it appears to be rather liberal in summarizing all of the options a generic has (which might confirm its inherent bias).

And of course as you read this, you don't know what you aren't reading that comprises a conclusive Plaintiff counter to these arguments.

This document is in a Scribd posting by MetsFan, earlier this afternoon.