Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[alm2]

Marjac

Humour me- the way the Du decision came about has been troubling me

Du refers in her judgement to POSA not having considered K - this is very very important

however In this she appears in all probability wrong in that K is referenced by POSA and thus considered (although there is no actual record in the Posa process

(???? -Was this point ever raised in the trial as to how one knows what a POSA considers ???)- does referencing allow one to infer consideration by POSA ?? )

However - Her line of reasoning must have been that IF POSA HAD Actually considered K he would have Ruled Patents obvious

Why would she think this ? -because she actually DID consider K AND of course having been sucked in by Heinke and cropped table - she considered -quite wrongly -that was the impact to be drawn from K - K would render patents obvious

And so Du was righting this wrong by POSA -his failure to consider K and it’s impact and thus ruled the patents obvious

She was doing her job properly .......

Conversely If the Posa had done his job properly (by considering the K study which was extant at the time - so thought Du -he would never have granted the patents. - thus his omission as to not considering K led to POSA granting - quite wrongly- the patents



We believe / consider that

1-POSA - ( having actually considered K ) - and without the impact of being misled by Heinke / cropped table -POSA -got it right and granted patents

2-but if POSA had not considered K he would nonetheless grant (albeit he should have been aware of K and considered ( the rule being that every study anywhere in the world of relevance should be in PoSa consideration/ mind )



So Either way Posa would have granted the patents


Du thought POSA had not considered K

What is impact of this ?

Du was of the view that POSA did not but should have taken into account K

As such

She was doing her job properly - Du can not be and is not being criticised for her actions

So she considered K But she was misled by fraud into a wholly false meaning as to the K study

And thus made the wrong decision in finding the patents obvious

Note - In the same way she bears no blame as to Mori - she was never made aware in the trial of the statistical issue as to Mori - (as per Bhatt paper )

Alm