Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[ggwpq]

BMS Vs Teva:

"the Court has found the evidence regarding objective
considerations of nonobviousness to be mixed. As to some considerations, such as the
commercial success that entecavir exhibited, whether there was a long-felt but unmet need for the
claimed invention, or as to certain unexpected properties that it demonstrated, the Court has
found there to be some evidence that could support of a finding of nonobviousness (though in
these cases, the record is more nuanced than BMS asserts). As to the other factors (including the
impact ofTeva's choice to copy entecavir, whether there has been a failure of others to find a
solution to the problem that the '244 Patent purports to solve, or whether there was a
demonstrated skepticism as to entecavir), the Court has not found the evidence put forward by
BMS to be particularly compelling. the evidence as to objective considerations was mixed. Some of those
considerations redounded to the benefit of BMS' s position as to nonobviousness to a degree, but
as to a number of other considerations, the impact of that evidence was not particularly
compelling. The totality of that evidence did not strongly persuade the Court as to entecavir' s
nonobviousness."

Compared that to Du's handling of SCs, do you think there is a difference?

Du not only weightd the SCs against each other and claimed certain SCs favored the defendants, she also used the prima facie obiousness to cheapen the positive SC in a recursive manner.