Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[HinduKush]

If yes, should it be the defendants' burden to prove HTG is the same as VHTG since all their prior arts do not include VHTG patients?
Yes, but the burden is preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing evidence. The clear and convincing standard applies to the overall conclusion of obviousness, not to each fact in dispute.

Do you think the defendants has accomplished that in Du's court?
Based on what I’ve read on this board, no. But there is evidence in the record (e.g., expert testimony) upon which Judge Du could have relied in coming to the opposite conclusion. She was there; she is entitled to credit one expert over another – that’s her job.

I guess this comes back to where do you see that a preponderance of evidence showed that HTG and VHTG were essentially the same animal as far treatment is concerned?

This was emphasized by the Amrn legal team and attested to by their medical witnesses but ignored by Du.