Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[alm2]

Marjac

Further .......

The defendants seek to bring the position adopted by A as to Rule 60 to support their assertions that the Epadi motions are untimely and without merit.This can simply be turned on its head:had A supported substantively or financially the Epadi action would the defendants have accepted the timely nature of the application(because it would still have been brought at the same time ?-would it have rendered the motion meritorious in the defendants view?

“ Epadi cropped table-Kool Aid “

By referring to such in their brief the defendants have clearly recognised Epadi assertion that the K table WAS cropped. Beyond this reference the defendants silence as to this crucial factual matter is defeaning.The defendants do not take their obvious opportunity to deny that the table WAS cropped.They do not seek to explain how this happened or whom was responsible for it. Above all and most significantly they do attempt to negate Epadi crucial point that the cropping of the table left out the most compelling information arising from the K study which was - NS- no statistical significance
Had the court read the missing element - the cropped element-NS - the court could only have concluded that the K study could not have rendered A patents obvious
The defendants silence speaks volumes as to their continued duplicity- for indeed they now have the opportunity to recognise the factual and statistical truth.
Cropping-leaving NS out allowed the defendants through evidence from their duplicitous experts testimony to completely misrepresent the K study to support a finding of obviousness

More to follow
Alm