Qs for the board. Can someone explain the relevance of this "SYNERGY" as I think it may be another fatal error by Judge Du and may help us win the case. I really don't understand how it is relevant and I think the Judge got confused on it and made a conclusion against amrn in her decision based solely on it.
Amrn Findings of Fact Post trial states
"Although Dr. Heinecke opined that the results do not suggest “any interaction or synergy between estriol and EPA,” see Trial Tr. 735:21–24 (Heinecke Direct), a person of ordinary skill would have understood, as Dr. Toth (who was trained in OB/Gyn) explained, that estriol is a “complex molecule” and therefore, Kurabayashi does not tell that person “much of anything about EPA alone.”
Defendants Findings of Fact Post trial brief states
"The results reported in Kurabayashi do not suggest any interaction or synergy between
EPA and estriol. Heinecke Tr. 735:21-736:9. Instead, synergy is usually only seen between drugs that have similar effects, such as two drugs that reduce blood pressure. Id. (Heinecke).
282. In light of the statistically-significant differential effects reported between the EPA and control groups, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have attributed the reduction in Apo B to EPA. Id. at 737:24-738:8 (Heinecke)."
Judge Du Decision essentially copy and pastes the defendants above statements as she write
"The results reported in Kurabayashi do not suggest any interaction or synergy
between EPA and estriol. (ECF No. 367 at 735:21-736:9.) Instead, synergy is usually only seen between drugs that have similar effects, such as two drugs that reduce blood pressure. (Id.)
In light of the statistically-significant differential effects reported between the EPA and control groups, a POSA would have attributed the reduction in Apo B to EPA. (Id. at 737:24-738:8.)"
CAN SOMEONE PLEASE EXPLAIN TO ME/ARGUE HOW SYNERGY AT ALL COMES INTO PLAY HERE TO SHOW THE RESULTS CAN BE CONCLUDED TO BE FROM EPA ALONE. I REALLY CANT GET IT INTO WORDS HOW IRRELEVANT THAT STATEMENT IS AND I MAY SEND MY SECOND WRITE UP TO AMARIN REGARDING THIS POINT AS I THINK IT IS HEAVILY WEIGHTED IN HER BRIEF. THANKS
