Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[alm2]

Marjac

More

The DC in part refused the Rule 24 application on the basis of prejudice to the defendants as to find for Epadi that the decision should be vacated would nullify the work of many years ...etc
The DC in finding such misunderstands the concept of prejudice. Agreeing that Epadi had standing would not vacate the courts decision - it could only do so if the court found the Rule 60 case to be made out by Epadi . If the court found it right to allow the Rule 60 motion it is not a matter of prejudice to the defendants - they rightly should not be allowed any economic benefit from the practice of a fraud upon the court . Conversely if the court ruled that the Rule 60 was not made out there would be no adverse economic effect upon the defendants as the patents would continue to be considered invalid as per the courts original decision.
There is no prejudice to either party Amarin or Hickma by deciding that Epadi has standing under Rule 24 -Crucially -The defendants are not prejudiced as to the presentation evidentially as to their case in relation to the Rule 60 motion
Alm

More to follow