Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[HDGabor]

d- (& rafunrafun #326598)

I’m saying that Hikma can’t claim blindness to the infringing behavior by claiming they had no knowledge that their product would be used in an infringing manner

??? I am not aware anything like this. Hikma does claim they had no knowledge that their product would be used in an infringing manner. This is the reason why it is apples to oranges, "willful blindness" (which is relates to "the knowledge" is not a topic / issue here.

or that advertising the AB rating wouldn’t encourage infringement

It will decided by the court, I did not opine about it.

Hikma knows exactly how the system works ... Their intentions have been clear from the start ... knowledge it will be used to infringe ... knowing that it’s currently being sold in an infringing manner ... know that PBMs are inducing and encouraging infringement on the CVD indication

All of these are true but none of them a proof of inducement (which require a specific action, a mere knowledge is not enough).

The case is about about a specific (active) action by Hikma: the label, the PRs, the homepage, etc (definitely excluding the produced volume or business view / expectation). No dispute about the prerequisite (existence of direct infringement and knowledge of it by Hikma).

To avoid any doubt: I did not opine about the outcome of the case but I am not too optimistic ... since I did not count the other "proofs" (volume, mere knowledge, market share, etc.) as a proof. I see it as a coin flip, 50/50 ... (maybe) I give a higher probability to the SC case than to this one.

-----
rafunrafun #326598

Hikma subjectively believed there was a high probability that REDUCE-IT indication was patented and took deliberate steps to avoid knowing that fact.

Please give me a reference, a context ... since Hikma did not believe but exactly know that REDUCE-IT indication was patented, hence the "skinny label"
-----

Best,
G