Document 333
Section B "Conclusions of Law" on pages 35-49 details how prior cases and applicable law details induced infringement.
This is the Defendants filing, so is obviously written to advance their arguments, but is there a corresponding Amarin response that picks these apart?
As these read, they grant much latitude to a generic who does not explicitly encourage, via labeling or other promotion, prescribing a
'me-too' generic medication for patent-protected uses. In fact, it appears to be rather liberal in summarizing all of the options a generic has (which might confirm its inherent bias).
And of course as you read this, you don't know what you aren't reading that comprises a conclusive Plaintiff counter to these arguments.
This document is in a Scribd posting by MetsFan, earlier this afternoon.
Market Data 
Markets 
