Hamoa -
I could not agree more, and thank you for your valuable analysis. There isn’t much more to add. Today’s call did not alter my analysis or probability for success either. I also read the post-trial briefs in their entirety as well as the underlying cases.
While I have many thoughts, I just want to add a couple of additional granular points. Defendants’ primary authority on the inducement issue is distinguishable - particularly Grunenthal. It has been distinguished on this board. Sanofi was the decision referenced by Silbersher today, from which a very logical analogy can be drawn (and has been drawn by the Court). The law is also clear - the label is to be read in its entirety.
I may have missed it, but I believe Silbersher discounted the strength of Amrn’s expert testimony in supporting its infringement position (again likely due to unfamiliarity), in that severe hypertrig is a chronic condition, which (the Court has even acknowledged), would require indefinite treatment.
On the issue of obviousness, the only point I will add is that the other examples of prior art that were relied upon by the defendants (other than Mori), are also distinguishable on the same grounds. Given the daunting burden of proof that the defendants carry on this issue, I was particularly surprised by Silbersher’s lower expectation for success.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
