Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[jessellivermore]

nmiall75...

You sound like you might be an understudy to MRC..

Quote: "The thought occurred to me, reading the learned comments in this forum, as to whether the Appeals Court could find that inferences not supported by Mori’s study were possibly nevertheless drawn at the time due to Mori. In turn might they say that a researcher could have believed as obvious that EPA would not increase LDL levels even while accepting they should not, based on a correct understanding of Mori, have done so?"

Wow..This is real big time gibberish even by this board's standards..You are arguing what?...That just because a researcher could make the same factual error Du did that Du was correct..The issue of burden of proof does not lie solely on Amarin...Du actually made a procedural error by shifting the burden of proof the PTO's patents were not obvious to the plaintiffs and not to the defendants having to prove by clear and overwhelming evidence that the patents were obvious..

Also..FYI...Everyone who was knowledgeable in the lipid field at the time of MORI was of the opinion that trig lowering would reflexively increase LDL-C levels..So your tax example is not applicable in this case..

":>) JL