I agree with North's synopsis of the patent trial issue.
My only concern is the judge. I have no idea of whom the judge is and his/hers previous rulings or dispositions. Just reading the outcome of the recent Amgen patent suit, a jury had a verdict and then the judge decided to overturn it.
In any situation as this, what is the 'pre-disposition' of the judge, if any? Does he/she follow strict interpretation of the law and facts as they are presented, or would he/she have tendency to have a predetermined outcome and mold the facts to fit the final opinion?
To whit...
-Does the judge feel that denying the DS companies their claims harm more companies in the DS industry as compared to little old AMRN?
-Will the judge feel that if the DS companies can market a drug that is an equivalent to Vascepa, the judge ruling in favor of DS would be getting a beneficial drug being produced by more companies at more competitive pricing levels, and therefore reaching more potential patients??
-Does the judge just go back into chambers and flip a coin to arrive at a decision?
I don't think any of the above are valid arguments or scenarios, but I am not the judge.
I think AMRN has a strong case, but again, it will be ONE PERSON that makes the final decision. I like AMRN's odds, but it is not a 100% given of a victory.
Just my 2-cents opinion. The overturn of a jury verdict by the judge in the Amgen case has given me a jaded opinion of the judiciary system.
Cheers!
Flubber