eightisenough Tuesday, 06/30/20 03:47:48 PM Re: oneragman post# 283785 Post # of 301152 oner-The only relevant factual question (re: prima facie of obviousness) is whether AMRN is correct that at the time the scientific community held vascepa to be not obvious--b/c mech. of over 500 was thought to increase LDL. or generics and Du's position is correct that vascepa was obvious b/c they feel no difference in mech, ONE patient in a study was over 500 (:>)) , and Du incorrectly fudged Dr. Toth's statement that regarding lowering trigs over 500 is same as under 500 --so too she made a leap that same applies to LDL. SO TO ANSWER YOUR QUESTION THIS DOES NOT OPEN UP MANY FACTUAL ISSUES. Yet, regarding the sec. cons. mistakes of Du--that can open up many factual issues depending how deep court goes in evaluating all factors, once concluding that du was wrong to negate one sec. cons. against another, and whether Du was wrong to weigh sec. cons. only after initial prima facie analysis.