Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[HinduKush]

Iryo,

With respect to the more particular allegation that a fraud occurred, if the generics do respond to the Amicus brief, they are likely to point out that the entire Kurabayashi article, including the uncropped version of Table 3, was submitted as a separate exhibit into evidence during the trial. They will argue that that essentially negates any finding that the defendants defrauded the court with a cropped version of a table.

My point remains that they supplied a whole paper without any specific annotation as a reference in the post trial appendix, whilst at the same cropping Table 3 in a different version, and then basing their arguments to all intents and purposes ONLY onthe cropped table narrative. Further Heinecke's staistical representations interpreted the cropped table construct ONLY (albeit without much if any Covington resistance) and this was taken (perhaps too willingly) at face value by Judge Du. The Nozaki and Grimsgard data that are spoken of in teh same breath as Kurabayshi are worthless prior art ( I can discuss later) and are tangentially cited for good effect--Kurabaysahi is basically [ball the generics have to support the obviousness of the Apob EPA effects.

BTW, IF it was OK for generics to say they have staisfied full disclosure by enclosing an unedited version of Kurabayashi in their post trial appendix references, WHY was it not okay for the patent examiner to have similarly cited Kurabayashi in his allowance of patents discussion back in the day prior to MARINE patent approval--this point was specifically cited by generic attorneys and repeated in the Judge Du Bench order as having been evidential of lack of USPTO consideration of Kurabayshi, in the main USPTO examiner allowance discussion? Double standards again...
HK