Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[Laurent Maldague]

Finding something VERY interesting in the Novo case (the case Reyna/Dyk relied on and Singer had trouble clarifying why ours is different).

So the written opinion in Novo actually both acknowledged and affirmed In re Cyclobenzaprine.

Novo case: http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/11-1223.Opinion.6-14-2013.1.PDF

"In Cyclobenzaprine, we reversed and vacated a district court decision where the court reached its ultimate
conclusion on obviousness based solely upon the prima
facie evidence. Id. at 1075 (the prematurity of the district
court’s obviousness conclusion was apparent because “it
was not until after the district court found the asserted
claims obvious that it proceeded to analyze the objective
considerations”). In so doing, we reaffirmed our
longstanding precedent that it is error to find a claim
obvious “before . . . consider[ing] the objective considerations,” or to shift the burden of persuasion to the patentee
at any point during its obviousness analysis. Id. at 1075. "

I mentioned earlier the language difference between Du's prima facie section and Novo's, and how Du worded it much more strongly, saying that our "claims" were invalid/obvious. The Novo language is more careful and limits the prima facie conclusion to "a case has been established". If I'm reading this correctly, Novo doesn't contradict Cyclobenzaprine, and it is possible to overstep in the prima facie section if you say the "claims" are invalid.

https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=158720665

Cyclobenzaprine district case: https://www.ded.uscourts.gov/sites/ded/files/opinions/09-2118_2.pdf