Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[HDGabor]

Difference in "Nature of the Action".

Case No.: 2:16-cv-02525 (CAFC 20-1723)

This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., and in particular under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a-c, e) for infringement of
U.S. Patent No. 8,293,728 (“the ‘728 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,318,715 (“the ‘715 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,357,677 (“the ‘677 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,367,652 (“the ‘652 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,377,920 (“the ‘920 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,399,446 (“the ‘446 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,415,335 (“the ‘335 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,426,399 (“the ‘399 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,431,560 (“the ‘560 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,440,650 (“the ‘650 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,518,929 (“the ‘929 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,524,698 (“the ‘698 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,546,372 (“the ‘372 Patent”), and
U.S. Patent No. 8,617,594(“the ‘594 Patent”).

Case 3:20-cv-00421 (Filed 07/13/20 )

This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the United States, 35 U.S.C. § 100 et seq., and in particular under 35 U.S.C. § 271(a, b, e) for infringement of
U.S. Patent No. 8,293,728 (“the ‘728 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,318,715 (“the ‘715 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,357,677 (“the ‘677 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,367,652 (“the ‘652 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,377,920 (“the ‘920 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,415,335 (“the ‘335 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,426,399 (“the ‘399 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,440,650 (“the ‘650 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,518,929 (“the ‘929 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,524,698 (“the ‘698 Patent”),
U.S. Patent No. 8,546,372 (“the ‘372 Patent”), and
U.S. Patent No. 8,617,594 (“the ‘594 Patent”).

This claims are exactly the same as against Reddy's 500 mg ANDA (2:18-cv-01596-MMD-NJK ... CAFC 20-1901) which was consolidated with CAFC 20-1723 as:

On October 12, 2018, the parties to the new action filed a stipulation and proposed order (Exhibit B attached hereto) which (a) acknowledged that the infringement and validity issues presented by the new 500 mg dosage strength litigation were substantially identical to those in the ongoing consolidated actions; (b) agreed that the prevailing party in the consolidated action would be entitled to a corresponding consent judgment in the 500 mg dosage strength action; and (c) asked the court to stay the 500 mg dosage strength action until the outcome of the consolidated action. ...

No further action took place in the 500 mg action until after the district court entered judgment in the consolidated action on March 30, 2020. After that judgment, the parties agreed to enter a corresponding consent judgment in the 500 mg action. ... The district court entered the consent judgment on May 4, 2020.2 Plaintiffs-Appellants filed a timely Notice of Appeal from the consent judgment on May 22, 2020. ...

Here, the appeals involve the same asserted claims from the same patents-insuit, and therefore involve the same factual and legal issues. ...

I did not check but - more likely - the difference "require administration of 1 g capsules, which does not apply to the 500 mg dosage strength."

I have no idea what Amarin would like to say exactly with

In addition, Amarin asserts in this lawsuit patent claims that contain non-obvious limitations as compared to the claims invalidated by the March 30, 2020 judgment. The issues raised by the additional patent claims Amarin asserts in this lawsuit are not identical to the claims that were previously invalidated.

other than 9 Claims were invalidated but the patents contain other Claims also ...

Based on that the original Complaints are exactly the same in all cases - except the two patents that require administration of 1 g capsules - it is a nothing burger ... Amarin has to file it since

Upon information and belief, on or before June 1, 2020, Defendants, through Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc., submitted to the FDA an amendment to ANDA No. 209457 to obtain approval for 0.5 g icosapent ethyl capsules purportedly bioequivalent to VASCEPA

More likely it will be moot by CAFC decision (if it will be final).

Best,
G