Ok, so looked into Kurabayashi and MC (or whoever posted) is 100% correct in the EPA group being not being statistically significant with relationship to the control group in regards to the drop in APO-B. The Judge erroneously cites the P<.001 as being a statistical significant when it is only describing the variance between the measured subjects of the EPA group. <br /> <br /> In the study the control group and epa group were independently studied for a possible variance (this P value was calculated using a repeated measures test) and the two groups were compared against each other using a t-test. The t-test produced results that were NOT SIGNIFICANT meaning any person (skilled or not) would assume APO-B was not reduced. Just looking at the data, a -6.9% reduction is already a small value. THEN you take the -1.5% the control group decreased (6.9%-1.5% = 5.4%) and you have an even smaller number. THEN you factor in that the EPA group started with 1.1% higher APO-B level (5.4-1.1=4.3%) and you get an even smaller number. <br /> <br /> This is huge for the case as the Judge ruled in favor of two other secondary conditions and an appellate court cannot reject the notion that this interpretation is insignificant in the outcome of the case. <br /> <br /> Furthermore, another huge issue is the judge taking the expert opinion that 5% of the time the drug is prescribed <12 weeks as a grounds to promote the "non-infringement" citing case precedent with another ruling of 5% being deemed significant. Knowing the expanded usage being 2-3+ times that (all relating to long term usage), this number would go down to 1.6-2.5%! That means that if AMRN is bringing in 1bil/yr in revenue, then Himka can only (under the grounds/belief of not infringing) expect around 2 million. Why does their press release cite Vascepa's entire sales? Are they planning on infringing or are they misrepresenting a claim in violation with SEC regs?