Well if I am wrong, it will neither be the first time nor the last. And I certainly apologize. But at bare minimum if IO_IO is not a troll, he is trolling on the issues for which I called him out, which coincidentally, are the same issues about which I called you out.
There is no evidence in the trial record which would allow Judge Du to conclude in a professional interview addressing her patent experience, that she was "tutored on varied technical issues in patent cases, such as learning .... the benefits of fish oil."
The trial was not about the benefits of fish oil. The trial was about the benefits of Vascepa, which is a complex chemical compound highly distinctive from fish oil. But she did not use the term "Vascepa" in the interview. She used the term "fish oil".
Therefore, it can logically be perceived that this Judge is equating Vascepa with fish oil. By giving rise to the perception that she is equating Vascepa with fish oil, she also gives rise to the perception that she ruled against Vascepa's patents because Vascepa is akin to nothing more than common fish oil.
The Judge's wrongful mischaracterization thus gives rise to the perception questioning her impartiality in this case, especially considering the heightened scrutiny to which her comments are subjected as a member of the federal judiciary. She has thus violated Canon 3A(6) and Canon 2A of the Code of Conduct. This is deductive reasoning not rank speculation as opined by IO_IO.
In his meek response, IO_IO references the portion of her Opinion discussing Lovaza, which is a prescription medication containing DHA. It is not over the counter fish oil.
Indeed, survey the bulk of the public on what they equate most with the term "fish oil": (a) prescription Vascepa; (b) prescription Lovaza; or (c) the capsules that one can get over the counter at health food stores, pharmacies, and Amazon. My money is that most people will select (c).
Her discussion of Lovaza in no way supports the statement that she learned the benefits of fish oil. The Lovaza patents were not on trial. The Vascepa patents were on trial. She learned the benefits of Vascepa, which she appears to consider to be nothing more than fish oil.
So you are telling me in an interview given in the immediate aftermath of the trial on the Vascepa patents, she learned the benefits of fish oil, but was referencing Lovaza? Does that make any sense whatsoever? She was referencing Lovaza, not Vascepa, even though it was the Vascepa patents, not the Lovaza patents, which were on trial?
Game. Set. Match. IO_IO is being contrarian for the sake of being contrarian, being an apologist for the sake of being an apologist for Judge Du, and then doubling down on his folly by referencing a portion of the Opinion which in no way supports his erroneous conclusion.
When one advocates false conclusions based upon false premises, one is trolling.
