Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[HDGabor]

z- (&Retiredceo &invest2992)

Apparently the "obviousness" part of the case is over ...The "inducement" part of the case remains to be litigated on Monday...

SMH …

Meanwhile the "inducement" part could be a topic during next week … all ("EXPERT WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED AT TRIAL ON THE ISSUE OF
INFRINGEMENT") but Peter R. Mathers (Generics' witness) were examined and cross-examined. Apparently the "inducement" part of the case is over.

All Generics' witnesses ("EXPERT WITNESSES TO BE PRESENTED AT TRIAL ON THE ISSUES OF NONOBVIOUSNESS AND OBJECTIVE INDICIA OF NONOBVIOUSNESS", Case 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK; Document 331; Filed 01/06/20; Page 20 of 284) were examined and cross-examined during Day 3&4&5.
Meanwhile Sean Nicholson, Ph.D. was the only one from Amarin's side.

Most likely - 99+% - the "obviousness" part of the case will be continued on Monday / during next week … with examination and cross-examination of Amarin's (remining) witnesses about "obviousness":
- Firhaad Ismail, M.D., F.A.C.E
- Peter Toth, M.D., Ph.D.
- R. Preston Mason, Ph.D.

The generics' "advertisement" of $725 million revenue in their talk at the JPM meeting should give the court further evidence of the real motives of Hickma and Dr. Reddy.

The motives does not matter … furthermore the knowledge of (direct) infringement (by physicians) does not matter WITHOUT the indirect infringement (inducement) … WITHOUT "the specific intent, based on the contents of their proposed labels, to encourage physicians to use their proposed ANDA products", The presentation could be used - as was used by Amarin - against "obviousness" … and (maybe) as Hikma "had knowledge of the direct infringer's activities" … but it is not enough for inducement. The "inducement requires evidence of culpable conduct, directed to encouraging another's infringement, not merely that the inducer had knowledge of the direct infringer's activities." DSU Med. Corp. v. JMS Co., 471 F.3d 1293, 1306 (Fed.Cir.2006). The presentation does not contains the label …

Retiredceo: It implies that they are counting on it to happen. That may be enough.

Nope. See above.

invest2992: explain what the legal definitions of "infringement" and "inducement" are/mean as it applies to the Marine label and who has to prove the same for Amarin to win the generics case, because to me it seems impossible for the generics to enter the market without infringing.

For more details: see #242513 … and see above also.
- Indicement <> Infringement. Indicement is a type of infringement, an indirect infringement
- Inducement: is not a knowledge of (direct) infringement but an encouragement of (direct) infringement
- Encouragement could be done by the label only. Encouragement = label

The trial is about this … the Judge will decide that the label encourage physicians or does not, encourage direct infringement or does not.

- - - - -
Best,
G