Replies to post #237646 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[HDGabor]

M-

The parties (including AMRN) agree this was incorrect?

Yes.

- “The patent examiner, in response to Amarin’s patent applications, initially found that the prior art rendered all of the claims obvious, and thus unpatentable”
- “The examiner allowed the patents to issue solely because Amarin “was able to overcome the 103 obviousness rejection” by alleging that the claimed invention has “unexpected results” and satisfies a “long unmet medical need.” Id. These are “secondary considerations,”
- “The examiner did not change his mind about the prior art until Amarin submitted a declaration by Dr. Lavin opining that “not even one patient in the [Hayashi] study would be expected to have a TG level of 450 mg/dl or higher.”
- “It is now beyond dispute that this was a mistaken reading of the prior art. At his deposition, Dr. Lavin admitted that [SEALED]
- “examiner accepted as true Dr. Lavin’s opinion that the prior art did not teach administering purified EPA to patients with triglycerides of at least 500 mg/dL, which the parties now agree was incorrect”
- ““a strong showing of obviousness may stand even in the face of considerable evidence of secondary considerations.”
- “Defendants only seek to show that the asserted patents were issued based on factual mistakes about the prior art”

Best,
G