Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[louieblouie]

Rule 60 - document 409


W. West Allen
2 3 4
5 Email: [e-mail]
6
7
8
Arthur A. Zorio
9 Nevada Bar No. 6547
BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER SCHRECK, LLP 5520 Kietzke Lane, Suite 110
Reno, NV 89511
Telephone: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Nevada Bar No. 5566
HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1000
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Telephone: [phone]
Attorneys for Defendants Hikma Pharmaceuticals USA Inc. and Hikma Pharmaceuticals International Limited
Attorneys for Defendants Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEVADA
AMARIN PHARMA, INC. and AMARIN
PHARMACEUTICALS IRELAND LIMITED, Plaintiffs,
v.
HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC. and HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS INTERNATIONAL LIMITED,
Defendants.
Case No. 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK
(Consolidated with Case No. 2:16-cv-02562-MMD-NJK)
DEFENDANTS’ RESPONSE TO THE MOTION TO INTERVENE PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 24 BY “EPADI II”

Case 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK Document 409 Filed 04/01/21 Page 2 of 4
1 This patent case has been closed for nearly a year since the Court entered its final judgment,
2 which the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed without opinion. ECF No. 382; Amarin Pharma, Inc.
3 v. Hikma Pharms. USA, Inc., 819 F. App’x 932 (Mem.) (Fed. Cir. 2020). Now, an attorney and Amarin
4 retail investor named Michael Kasanoff, purporting to represent an “ad hoc” group called “EPADI II,”
5 seeks to intervene under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24 (ECF No. 401) for purposes of moving to
6 vacate the Court’s judgment under Rule 60 (ECF No. 405). Both the motion to intervene and the
7 proposed Rule 60 motion are frivolous on their face and merit no response. In an abundance of cau-
8 tion, however, and in light of LR 7-2(d)’s guidance that failure to respond to a motion typically “con-
9 stitutes a consent to the granting of the motion,” Defendants file this short response to the pending
10 motion to intervene.
11 As brief background, Mr. Kasanoff’s motion is the result of an online crowdfunding campaign
12 by disgruntled retail investors in Amarin stock.1 For the past year, Mr. Kasanoff and other retail
13 investors have concocted various conspiracy theories on online message boards regarding this Court’s
14 judgment. The present motion to intervene is at least their third filing advancing such theories. First,
15 after the Court entered its judgment last year, Mr. Kasanoff filed a judicial misconduct complaint
16 against this Court with the Ninth Circuit, which he publicly shared online under the screenname “mar-
17 jac.”2 Second, after the Federal Circuit summarily affirmed this Court’s judgment, Mr. Kasanoff filed
18 a motion for leave to file an amicus brief in support of rehearing based on the same “fraud” arguments
19 as his proposed Rule 60 motion. See Amarin Pharma, Inc. v. Hikma Pharms. USA, Inc., No. 20-1723,
20 Dkt. 82 (Fed. Cir.). The Federal Circuit summarily denied Mr. Kasanoff’s motion without waiting for
21 a response by any party. See id., Dkt. 86. Mr. Kasanoff has now repackaged his conspiracy theories
22 for a third time in the form of a motion to intervene for purposes of seeking vacatur of the Court’s
23 judgment on Amarin’s behalf. As with his previous filings, this motion is frivolous.3
24 Mr. Kasanoff, or “EPADI II,” first asks to intervene as of right under Rule 24(a)(2). Mot. 2–
25
26
1 See https://www.gofundme.com/f/vascepa-intellectual-property-justice-fund
2 https://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=155755858
3 Mr. Kasanoff has clearly monitored the case for some time and waited to file a motion to intervene
27
until after Amarin’s unsuccessful appeal at the Federal Circuit. Mr. Kasanoff should therefore be
28
estopped from now seeking intervention at a time when the case has been closed for nearly a year. 1

Case 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK Document 409 Filed 04/01/21 Page 3 of 4
1 10. That rule, however, requires “an interest relating to the property or transaction that is the subject
2 of the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(a)(2). EPADI II has no such interest. This is a patent case, and
3 EPADI II admits it does not own or have any legal interest in the patents-in-suit: “EPADI II is seeking
4 to intervene for purposes of restoring Amarin’s patents, not their own patents.” Mot. 6. EPADI II
5 next asks to intervene permissively under Rule 24(b)(1)(B). Mot. 10–12. But that rule requires “a
6 claim or defense that shares with the main action a common question of law or fact,” and EPADI II
7 does not articulate any “claim or defense,” let alone one that shares a common question of law or fact
8 with the patent infringement claims in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 24(b)(1)(B). Indeed, EPADI II has
9 not even filed a pleading, as required by Rule 24(c). EPADI II admits it is “not . . . raising new causes
10 of action” and instead “stand[s] on Amarin’ s pleadings already on file.” Mot. 12–13. Y et Amarin’ s
11 pleadings only state claims for patent infringement, and again, EPADI II does not own, license, or
12 claim any other right to the patents-in-suit. Mot. 6. EPADI II’s failure to plead any claim or defense,
13 and its lack of standing to pursue the patent claims under which this case arose, are fatal.
14 Regardless, intervention would be futile because EPADI II has no standing to file its proposed
15 Rule 60 motion. “The plain language of Rule 60(b) only allows relief to be given to ‘a party’ to the
16 litigation,” and EPADI II was “never ‘a party’ to the original action.” Ericsson Inc. v. InterDigital
17 Commc’ns Corp., 418 F.3d 1217, 1224 (Fed. Cir. 2005); see also, e.g., Hook v. State of Arizona, 188
18 F. App’x 577, 578 (9th Cir. 2006) (“Rule 60(b) provides that ‘the court may relieve a party’ from a
19 final judgment; a nonparty cannot move for relief under Rule 60(b) except in ‘exceptional circum-
20 stances.’”) (citing Citibank Int’l v. Collier-Traino, Inc., 809 F.2d 1438, 1440–41 (9th Cir. 1987));
21 Almoguera v. Allstate Ins. Co., 923 F.2d 861 (Mem.), 1991 WL 3067, at *1 (9th Cir. Jan. 11, 1991)
22 (“nonparties generally do not have standing to attack a judgment under Rule 60(b)”); Popovich v.
23 United States, 661 F. Supp. 944, 951 (C.D. Cal. 1987) (“Courts have been quite strict in construing
24 Rule 60(b) and have limited relief under it to those who are unquestionably parties.”).
25 Intervention is also futile because EPADI II’s proposed Rule 60 motion is facially baseless—
26 including not only its attempt to relitigate Amarin’s factual arguments about statistical significance,
27 but its outrageous and libelous claims of “fraud” against Dr. Heinecke and Defendants’ counsel. In
28
2

7 8 9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DATED: April 1, 2021
/s/ W. West Allen
W. West Allen (Nev. Bar No. 5566) HOWARD & HOWARD ATTORNEYS PLLC 3800 Howard Hughes Parkway, Suite 1000
Las Vegas, NV 89169
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Charles B. Klein (admitted pro hac vice) Claire A. Fundakowski (admitted pro hac vice) WINSTON & STRA WN LLP
1700 K Street N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20006
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail],
[e-mail]
George C. Lombardi (admitted pro hac vice) Alison M. Heydorn (admitted pro hac vice) WINSTON & STRAWN LLP
35 W. Wacker Drive
Chicago, IL 60601
Tel: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
/s/ Arthur A. Zorio
Arthur A. Zorio (Nevada Bar No. 6547) BROWNSTEIN HYATT FARBER
SCHRECK, LLP
5520 Kietzke Lane, Suite 110 Reno, NV 89511
Tel.: [phone]
Email: [e-mail]
Constance S. Huttner (admitted pro hac vice) Frank D. Rodriguez (admitted pro hac vice) James Barabas (admitted pro hac vice) Caroline Sun (admitted pro hac vice)
Beth Finkelstein (admitted pro hac vice) WINDELS MARX LANE &
MITTENDORF, LLP
1 Giralda Farms, Suite 100
Madison, NJ 07940
Tel: [phone] / Fax: [phone] Email: [e-mail],
[e-mail] [e-mail], [e-mail], [e-mail]
Attorneys for Defendants Dr. Reddy’s Labora- tories, Inc. and Dr. Reddy’s Laboratories, Ltd.
Case 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK Document 409 Filed 04/01/21 Page 4 of 4