Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[HDGabor]

JL-

Calm yourself..You are not my daughter…

I'm sorry...

Meanwhile I did not put a smiley @ the end of my post … you "should" see the "severity" based on my "Luke reference". I was sure - and LMAO - that it was an unintentional mistake (wrong copy and paste).

My daughter agreed with most of G's opinions on the patent issue..Where she did not agree was the infringement issue. I don't want to go into specifics..because I am not sure I appreciate the subtle nuances of the issue

she agreed in general with G's written opinion on the patent issues as far as "obviousness" (she did not believe the generics proved obviousness)...but did not agree with G re. inducement. She felt that the indirect inducement issue was open and a subject to determined "by the experts".

I interpret your daughter 's view / opinion (based on your post … and other posts) as:

"obviousness": she agrees with me ("strong arguments regarding the non-obviousness issue") … with what I wrote "They refer to small studies, small pieces (as prior art) that are - maximum - good to raise questions, to establish theories but these are not (are far away from) a “clear-and-convincing-evidence(s)”, does not prove anything."

"inducement":

(i) contributory: "I disagree with is his conclusion regarding contributory infringement. I was able to find some case law that the existence of a substantial non-infringing use does not preclude a finding of inducement."

I did not conclude anything about contributory infringement, since it was a done deal at the time of my post … the Court granted Generics summary judgment that, they do not contributorily infringe Plaintiffs’ Asserted Claims.
(She mentioned it also: "However, due to the fact that the judge granted summary judgment to the defendants on this issue, it is no longer contested, i.e., the defendants have won on this sub-issue.").

(ii) inducement: "I disagree with is his conclusion regarding contributory infringement. I was able to find some case law that the existence of a substantial non-infringing use does not preclude a finding of inducement."

I think she was in a hurry … mixing contributory and inducement … but concluded the same. One of my reason / argument was (re. inducement)

(v) Generics further argued that because of the likelihood of a substantial number of non-infringing uses of GV, inducement cannot be implied or inferred. Warner-Lambert Co. v. Apotex Corp., 316 F.3d 1348, 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2003)

Generics are wrong as:
a.) While it is true that in Warner-Lambert there was evidence of significant non-infringing use (as high as 89% of the total) and the Federal Circuit had found that there was no infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271(b), the case was very different. Importantly the alleged infringing act was not promoted by the label. (Apotex was seeking FDA approval for an equivalent of Warner-Lambert’s Neurontin® (active ingredient gabapentin) to treat partial seizures, but only after the patent protecting Neurontin® for the same use had expired.)
b.) The statute addressing inducement of infringement does not contain a “substantial non-infringing use” restriction.
c.) The Supreme Court of the United States has held the opposite, finding that a person can be liable for inducing an infringing use of a product even if the product has substantial non-infringing use. MGM Studios, Inc. v. Grokster, Ltd., 545 U.S. 913 (2005).

As a final conclusion she has the "same" view

I still think there are very strong arguments regarding the non-obviousness issue and indirect inducement. At this point, it will really come down to a battle of the experts.

as I have

I think Amarin’s chance is good; probability of the win is high … however, it is not a sure thing.

Best,
G