Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[HinduKush]

Obviousness is not an objective fact, it a subjective legal judgment as to what a POSA would have learned from the prior art. The new experts are brought in here to provide a new interpretation of the prior art that was not presented at trial, but could have been presented. AMRN could have presented these experts at trial.

You mistake the legal issues involved.
No one is reinterpreting the obviousness of the prior art in a Rule 60 brief. What is being challenged here is different entirely. A judge has ruled based on the presented prior art data a priori entirely believing that the prior art presented was scientifically valid, and as importantly, that the data was interpreted in a scientifically valid manner. OTW why do we even need to present and debate the prior art? No new evidence is being presented nor is the merit of the scientific issues in lipid science being challenged. What is being challenged is the interpretation of the data by the court, which in the case of Kurabayashi is directly opposite of that which the authors' explicitly state and what was established as scientifically valid by peer-review. If as a court, the court then sets this aside in forming a contrary opinion, then the court is entitled to know (based on scientifically confirmable evidence) that the basis of what was represented as valid prior art to form this opinion was not blatant lies and misrepresentation (albeit not pointed out by either party)?

The issue of the cropped table that you find more compelling is all the more compelling because it was done to corroborate and reinforce the deliberate MISREPRESENTATION of Dr. Heinecke's bogus analysis which since it was deliberately done to defraud, clearly represents under Rule 60 a "fraud upon the court"...

The objective facts proving the strategy and evidence of deliberate falsification can be presented to the court directly and I will not discuss it further here. I will say that while you harp on about how Amrn attorneys should have brought this up earlier (and for the record I agree); nevertheless, it in no way detracts from the fact that a fraud and deliberate scientific misrepresentation occurred and regardless of who is responsible a judgement of error has resulted and thus must be remedied. One cannot argue this any more than we would argue that we can allow an innocent to be hanged on the basis of tainted murder evidence, just because the defence was lazy or stupid or negligent, or because the prosecution conned the judge?
HK