Kiwi, you are being contrarian for the sake of contrarian, as is your mantra, as you have completely missed the point of the argument, despite my painstaking efforts to lay it out in plain English.
My argument is not based on there being no benefits to fish oil. The VITAL Trial is wholly irrelevant. Was the VITAL Trial discussed and analyzed in in the trial presided over by Judge Du? Was this case about the VITAL Trial? Are the VITAL Trial results on the Exhibit List? Were they introduced into evidence? The answer is of course not.
This trial was about the benefits of Vascepa. She could have only been referring to Vascepa when she was referring to being tutored on the "benefits of fish oil."
The evidence I have that she is not referring to a very select sub population, is that the very select sub population was not the subject of the trial that she had just finished. Use your common sense, what is more likely: She was referring to a very select sub population that was not even the subject of her recently completed first ever patent bench trial, or was she referring to the meat and guts of what was briefed and discussed at her first ever patent bench trial?
To even proffer the point--that she was referring to a select sub population that was not the subject of the trial, rather than Vascepa which was the entire subject of the trial--suggests that you are grasping at straws, and not thinking rationally on this point.
But we go even further into your failure to grasp the argument forming the basis of my Complaint. Even if she were to assert the factually lacking Kiwi Defense that she was referring to a select sub population nowhere to be found in the record, it doesn't matter!
Canons 3A(6) and Canon 2A are based upon public PERCEPTION of a lack of impartiality, not whether she actually lacked impartiality. So the question is whether the fish oil reference denigrates the public perception of her impartiality.
As I explained previously, if she stated that she learned of the benefits of Vascepa, or icosapent ethyl, I would not have been able to file the Complaint. But she did not say that, she said "fish oil". Vascepa/icosapent ethyl is vastly different and distinctive than mere fish oil, thus worthy of patent protection.
If in her mind, it is not distinctive/different, but rather, nothing more than fish oil, as her comment would seem to indicate, then it is obvious and not worthy of patent protection. If that is indeed the case, the public would absolutely be justified in questioning her impartiality. She has therefore directly violated Canon 3A(6), and derivatively violated Canon 2A.
