Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[alm2]

Marjac
In sections ...
Related cases/ counter statement -might it be said that Amarin infringement case is related?

Timing of Epadi case ..”disgruntled retail investors” are in fact shareholders in the company who rightly consider that the loss of 7 billion of shareholder value post the district courts decision which was erroneous and based on two studies Mori and K which in the case of Mori has now been clearly demonstrated to have been statistically and fatally flawed as to its conclusion and in the case of K the DC relied on the false testimony of the defence expert supported by the cropping of the K table which if correctly presented would inevitably have caused the DC to reject K as having any part in supporting a conclusion that patents were obvious

“Outrageous abd baseless theories”- the Epadi case is based on the correct scientific consideration of Mori And K and are not theories but represent statements of fact
The defendants apart from through glib and excited rhetoric do not in their brief address any element whatsoever of the matters set out in clear and precise detail within the rule 60 motion - they do not challenge the facts

“No matter the stage of the litigation
Epadi brought its case within the prescribed time limits and expeditiously after the revelation of the statistical falseness of the Mori study being revealed and the K table cropping coming to light and expeditiously following Amarin failing to Perdue a Rule 60 application
The action brought by Epadi could not have been brought a moment sooner than it was

“The courts well reasoned judgement “
Was predicated on reliance for obviouslness upon the Mori study which is completely statistically flawed abd the K study which was misrepresented by the defence expert and his misrepresentation supported by the cropped K table

“Of note -Amarin did not provide any support whether substantive or financial “
The first point to make is that A did not object to the motions. The second point to make is that Epadi case had to be brought because A did not of its own volition pursue such action- it was entirely necessary because of this
A failure to do is not evidence or support for the suggestion of the defendants that these motions are without merit
Epadi is not aware as to why A failed to bring such action - A were at the time perusing other legal proceedings to seek the overturn of the D.C. decision. It is possible to speculate as to what other reasons A had in not bringing this action. The Defendsnts are not privy as to why A did not do so

More to follow

Alm