Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[marjac]

Canes, as I stated in my synopsis, and as was clearly set forth in our Briefs, the Bhatt paper/Mori issue has nothing to do with fraud/unclean hands/fraud upon the court under Rule 60(b)(3), 60(b)(6), or 60(d)(3). Rather, the Bhatt paper (Harvard, Harvard, and Duke), along with our expert report from Dr. Jarvis (Cambridge), are being relied upon to statistically eviscerate Mori based upon Mistake pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1), as noted in our Table of Contents reproduced below:

POINT V

PURSUANT TO RULE 60(b)(1), THE JUDGMENT SHOULD
BE VACATED ON GROUNDS OF MISTAKE DUE TO THE
DISTRICT COURT’S ERRONEOUS RELIANCE UPON
MORI TO ESTABLISH PRIMA FACIE OBVIOUSNESS...........41

A. Curfman, et. al. Statistically Eviscerates Mori as a Viable Basis
for Finding Clear and Convincing Evidence of Prima Facie
Obviousness.............41

B. EPADI II’s Expert, Dr. Gavin E. Jarvis, Statistically Eviscerates
Mori as a Viable Basis for Finding Clear and Convincing Evidence
of Prima Facie Obviousnes............42


C. The Statistical Evisceration of Mori Mandates Vacating the
Judgment on Grounds of Mistake Pursuant to Rule 60(b)(1)..........45