Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[alm2]

The granting of the patent - are we barking up the wrong tree over the issue of precisely how the patent was first granted -? I am no patent expert but is this not a process which is viewed in the round ? - the patent was granted - most important point-and by the application of all the principles to be applied in considering whether or not to actually grant a patent .
The fact that prior art led the patent examiner in his unique consideration of the application to determine there was obviousness did not adversely affect the patent application - it was granted - in his unique consideration by virtue of the secondary tests- which it is to be stressed are not secondary in value as opposed to a consideration of obviousness -but are simply a second part of the process . On the contrary secondary considerations may well carry very significant weight - one secondary consideration alone may lead to patent grant.
It is a unique consideration by the patent examiner

The simply fact was that the patent was granted - how it came to be granted does not reveal an issue of weakness - it is a grant or a refusal- it was a grant
The application for a patent and how it is granted is a different concept and process from the matter in issue in patent litigation
Indeed the starting point of such litigation is that the patent - those the subject of litigation is/ are entirely valid
In litigation it falls on the party asserting invalidity to prove - in a clearly defined manner -based on the evidence that the patent is invalid
The genetics of course - via Du decision did just this - proved before the district court the patents were invalid
The real issue is that Du reached the wrong decision -by serious error of fact and serious error in procedure
The appeal will be the test of whether in law it is viewed that indeed she reached the wrong decision

Du was not the patent examiner. She was a judge obliged in her court and jurisdiction to correctly interpret the facts and apply the appropriate legal precedents as to patent litigation

She did not
Alm