News Focus
News Focus
Followers 6
Posts 84
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 04/01/2020

Re: HinduKush post# 274243

Sunday, 05/17/2020 12:49:37 PM

Sunday, May 17, 2020 12:49:37 PM

Post# of 447426
HinduKush, you cannot just import scientific standards of evidence into a legal proceeding. Yes, in cases like Amarin’s patent battle with the generics, science plays a role. But the law has its own standards, for its own purposes, and in the end legal standards control. It is a mistake to judge Mori by the standards of peer review science and then assume that your conclusions in that respect will control how Mori functions in an obviousness analysis.

“In the Amarin appeal case the CAFC must somehow be induced to re-examine the Du process of determining prima facie obviousness or risk overlooking the egrey intellectual errors of logic and reasoning that lead to an erroneous conclusion.”

They will re-examine Judge Du’s factual findings, but under a clearly erroneous standard.

I think you are wrong about the patent examiner. The Amarin patents were allowed by the USPTO based on secondary considerations of non-obviousness, right? Not on the basis of failure of the prior art as a whole to create a prima facie case of obviousness.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent AMRN News