Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[rafunrafun]

Would they be any more responsible for infringement than say a tv manufacturer unknowingly selling tv's with chips in them that (yet to be proven) violate a competing chip manufacturer's patent?

Their point was that they don't know about the infringed patents. Doesn't this argument collapse if they go read the actual patents?

And what do you mean "yet to be proven"? Reduce-it is patented, so it is proven, WRT to your example.

A better example would be a store selling fake Prada purses for $20 and claiming that they didn't know they were fake.

contrarian view to the consensus of posters here ... SC will not hear Amarin's appeal, Amarin will lose this case with Hikma and the rule 60 appeal will be denied with no comment

These aren't contrarian views, they are the consensus.

SC - There isn't a single serious poster who thinks the chance of getting the case heard is more than 50%. I think the highest I read was 30%.

Rule 60 - Same but the chance is no more than 1%, IMO.

Against Hikma - I think 50/50 at best but against Health Net is much higher.

So you're not really taking the contrarian viewpoint, you're actually going with the consensus.