Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[Laurent Maldague]

Apo-B reduction as secondary consideration

https://seekingalpha.com/article/4335854-amarins-legal-struggles-expert-perspective

Looking at Silbersher interview (Markman Advisors) and I came across this

Ashok: How was this specific Apo-B factor considered by the Court while making its judgments on obviousness?

Silbersher: During prosecution of the patents before the Patent Office, the Examiner allowed the patents in part because it found an unexpected benefit of the claimed inventions was a reduction of Apo-B. The district court, however, found that Kurabayashi (one of the prior art references) taught or suggested that pure EPA would reduce Apo-B. The court then found that, during prosecution, the Examiner did not consider Kurabayashi. Accordingly, the court rejected a factual finding that a reduction of Apo-B was “unexpected” given that the Examiner did not consider Kurabayashi.

Does anyone have the text from Du's judgement explicitly stating the reason for Apo-B not holding water is because the patent examiner didn't consider Kurabayashi? Because it seems like the Kurabayashi study is cited in this AMRN patent:
https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/31/f0/18/75b4fe1305702c/US8293728.pdf

This seems like a clear factual error on Du's part. Does anyone have more color on this?