InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 14
Posts 730
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 03/14/2010

Re: marjac post# 273206

Wednesday, 05/13/2020 1:50:22 AM

Wednesday, May 13, 2020 1:50:22 AM

Post# of 423388
I just finished the whole thing myself. Was a nice read. I am surprised (yet very happy and bullish) that they stuck with their trial argument that TG<500 is diff then Tg> 500. They saved that argument and I thought it was impossible from being saved. Good to see. It was very persuasive and if you win that argument you win obviousness period.

I also enjoyed his comments about the patent examiner.
Recall the argument by defendants that the patent examiner initially rejected our patent (trying to show its weakness). This seems to hold no weight bc it was overcome and assumed to be valid. Our lawyers go on to say “ almost every patent ever allowed was once rejected by an examiner.” Lol
One argument made by us is
“Obviousness determinations are made by courts without deference to the rulings of the patent examiner.”

Therefore doesn’t matter at all that we were initially rejected. Period.

All the errors around Kurabayashi I sent in and many of you helped formulate were in the brief and strong. Looking forward to seeing the defendants reply brief now.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent AMRN News