“A party seeking to intervene must do so”As soon as he knows or has reason to know that his interests might be adversely affected by the outcome of the litigation” The defendants assert that Epadi in effect should have instigated its Rule 24 /Rule 60 action at the outset of the litigation process some 4.5 years ago.the reality is that it was only at the point where it became apparent that the K table had been cropped and introduced into the proceedings by the defendants. It was further a reasonable expectation that A would have themselves litigated on this matter. However the passage of time from the revelation of the cropped table introduction to the Ruke 24/rule 60 proceedings was only a matter of x months and not the 4.5 years that the defendants seek to divert the courts attention to on the issue of the timely bringing it Rule24/rule 60 action. The defendants put it this way “members of Epadi should have know from the outset of the litigation that they had a stake in the outcome of Amarins patent litigation suit against generic competition. This proposition from the defendants is simply preposterous . If it were true all parties who had a stake in litigation suit outcomes of this kind would have to institute Rule24 /rule 60 actions at the very beginning of every patent litigation suit - even though there was at that first point in time no justifiable cause to bring such an action or indeed evidence to support such an action. The defendants for their own protection from exposure of their fraud seek to obscure the simple and obvious fact that the basis of Epadi bringing this case is that at the very end of these proceedings a fraud was practised on the court and it is this that gave rise to Epadi taking interventionist action. The evidence that such a fraud was perpetrated was only revealed via the introduction of the cropped K table .
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
