Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[sstyles]

The panel seems to be focusing in on the partial label the period from 2008 to 2011. - The partial label period.

While a denial of a rehearing would have been ideal, I still like our (GSK's) chances to prevail at rehearing because this panel has Newman and this is the panel that ruled 2 to 1.

There are a lot of eyeballs on this case so perhaps Newman and Moore want to use it as an opportunity to write a better opinion.

Remember Teva's press release from 2007 remained on its website during the partial label period; in addition its product catalogs contained the comparison to GSK's drug.

The other thing I like is that the first trial was a jury trial and the jury came to the conclusion there was substantial evidence before the district court judge took that decision away from the jury. Courts are loathe to take cases away from a jury who sat and weighed the evidence.

I think Newman, Moore and Prost are going to press Teva on this partial label period. Teva says they carved it out whereas GSK says no you did not.

This phrase was telling from GSK's response brief.

GSK showed Teva was wrong on both points.GSK presented substantial evidence Teva’s partial label was not a true section viii carve-out because it left in language that instructed infringement via the post-MI LVD indication.

Maybe Newman will rewrite her opinion to support this notion that this was not a true Section 8 carveout.

The partial label period had press releases, promotional materials, and still language pointing to the patented method.

In short, today's news is not all so bad. If you had to pick a panel: this is an Amarin panel.

Just my two cents.

reread GSK's response brief: https://fedcircuitblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Glaxo_Response.pdf