Replies to post #121346 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[north40000]

I live a few miles from the Fed. Cir. abode, and am a member of the Fed. Cir. Bar and its FCBA where I am Founding Editor of the FCBA Bar Journal.

I have to be downtown tomorrow for a dinner and Kennedy Center performance ...maybe, time and weather permitting, I'll stop by the Clerk's office to request a copy of the brief to read on the premises---if denied, I will request an explanation from the Clerk or deputy clerk or maybe drop by a judge's office for a social visit.

Give me a Fed. Cir. docket number or an appeal number so I know what to ask for specifically. If restricted, the court might let me see the cover.

Also let me know if the matter is resolved to save me an extra trip and stop.

[Ortakoy17]

BB -

In response to your post from last night - this certainly is an interesting one, but I guess that is consistent with AMRN's legal history.

It seems clear from your post that AMRN does not want the brief sealed. I will note, clients don't always understand the purpose of sealing documents, but I believe JT to be very informed, so I doubt that to be the case.

With respect to the contents of the brief - I would expect AMRN to remain within the confines of the ITC's decision. While I believe the theories that are discussed on this board to a fair degree (and certainly feel that AMRN has been aggrieved over and over again), the Court of Appeals has to be base its decision on the ITC's actions, not political or other underlying motives. That's the only way to win on appeal. And to that point, despite the exacting standard, I've read AMRN's submission and believe a strong case exists.

I've also taken a look at the docket this evening. Docket Entry 51 simply notes that AMRN is making a correction consistent with the pertinent rules, in removing the names of certain counsel from the brief's cover page and signature blocks. Docket Entry 52 is the "corrected" version filed by AMRN, which only incorporates that change. I don't believe there is anything more below the surface that we don't see. The other parties to this lawsuit would certainly object to any other corrections made "out of time".