Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[HDGabor]

d- (& rafunrafun #326606)

First of all: sorry for my typo. Correctly:

I am not aware anything like this. Hikma does not claim they had no knowledge

However I think the first part "I am not aware anything like this" made it clear. Furthermore, I said later

No dispute about the prerequisite (existence of direct infringement and knowledge of it by Hikma).

But it was my fault (typo).

Having knowledge of the system and the high probability of infringement and doing the bare minimum to attempt to make sure it doesn’t happen

Hikma does not have to anything against direct infringement, it is not his liability ... but he is not allowed do - legally - anything FOR infringement

omitting language from the label regarding CVD, adding AB rating to your literature, ... is an act(s) of contributory infringement.

These do not have any nexus with contributory infringement. These - could be - the proof (circumstantial evidence of inducement of infringement. The court will decide. (Please note: acc. to my best knowledge the jury is the part of the court ... Furthermore, the jury verdict is not necessarily the final verdict ... see Teva vs GSK: the judge overruled the jury.)

supplying IPE in excess of the Marine indication market, is an act(s) of contributory infringement.

Yes, it is - could be - act of CI but does not have any nexus with inducement.

All generic manufactures are aware of how the system is gamed to allow infringement outside of the skinny label. Therefore to reduce any chance of liability for contributing to infringement

To reduce any chance of liability for contributing to infringement they did not have to any special, existence of substantial non-infringing use is enough this type of liability. The skinny label(ing) itself is a non-infringing use ...

I believe it’s incumbent upon those that want to sell into a skinny label, to do everything in their power to discourage and prevent infringing uses.

Nope. Those that want to sell into a skinny label is not entitled (it is forbidden for them) to do anything in their power to encourage the infringing uses. They do not have to do anything against it, do not have to discourage and prevent infringing uses.

they intend to infringe as much as possible claiming willful blindness or ignorance.

Again, sorry for my typo ... Hikma does NOT claim any blindness.

It’s not only about what they say and do but what they don’t say and do that contributes to the inducement and infringement.

It’s only about what they say and do ...
-----
rafunrafun #326606

What am I missing?

I do not see any reference or a context re. Singer's cited (?) words in your reply ...
-----

Best,
G