Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[johnking29]

YES - Yet like Novo, the Judges will review how the sides got to the SC's meaning what was used by the Judge to determine the Patent was Obvious first and foremost.

One of the arguments in Amarins case is the flawed info Due was provided to find the Patent Obvious. The examples she used were flawed science whereas the info in the Novo case was determined to not be flawed. The Patent Office also rejected the Novo Patent 4 times before approving it - a much different case than ours and a much higher hurdle for Novo...

Even in the Novo case one of the Judges questioned the evidence used to determine that the Patent was obvious to be sure it was not flawed asking if the evidence was intentionally altered to help the Generics:

"Dr. Sturis was accused of failing to notify the PTO that the original test plan did not include his data calculations at 120 minutes. The Federal Circuit found it to be a nonmaterial omission because it did not qualify as “but-for” material. The Court explained that this was not a case in which adverse results were hidden in favor of more positive data, nor did the omission undermine the opinion stated in the declaration."

In short - the Judges should go back to first make sure the determination that the Patent was deemed Obvious was not a flawed decision (as they did with the Novo decision) then they review the SC's to see if they were properly applied...

Singer will fight the decision that found the Patent obvious because the Generic's Cropped the data to bolster their position on a document they used to help their case... ADVERSE RESULTS WERE HIDDEN and IT UNDERMINED THE DECISION BY THE JUDGE AND WAS (most likely) INTENTIONAL!