Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[lettruthringout]

We'll disagree on this one too

No one is reinterpreting the obviousness of the prior art in a Rule 60 brief. ... believing that the prior art presented was scientifically valid

My take:


- Prior art is neutral; it is not in and of itself valid or invalid

- Prior art in this case are the analyses previously undertaken

- Prior art is not what is said about those analyses, even if said by the study’s own author; those are interpretations of what the analyses mean and/or what that prior art would/would not have led an inventor to think about some nascent idea for a product/process

- The court concluded (an interpretation) that the prior art (Lovaza PDR, Mori, Kurabayashi) would have led the inventor to scream Eureka! and begin work on the new product

- So, the Rule 60 motion is very much asking the court to reinterpret the obviousness of the prior art

- Rule 60 says no inventor worth his statistical salt, and understanding what that neutral prior art actually conveyed to those who knew how to interpret those neutral analyses, was that expending the resources to develop AMR-101 for its proposed purpose was a gamble and was far from being an obvious step to take from the prior art

- Implicitly, Rule 60 argues that the Court has taken the view, that with 20-20 hindsight it is what a statistically unsophisticated POSA would or might deem obvious from the prior art that is the standard rather than what a sophisticated POSA could, in accordance with scientific and statistical principles, deem about the likelihood of a successful invention from what the neutral prior art actually conveyed.

What is being challenged is the interpretation of the data by the court

Am not sure you give two whits about the court's interpretation of data unless it pertains to its determination of the obviousness of the prior art. If indeed you are a statistical purist that make take you down a number of garden paths that are better off left untrodden in this effort.