Replies to post #242184 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[Jeffkad]

Oh, I’m totally there with you. I spent a lot of time at ipwatchdog site and other research sites and my head was absolutely spinning. I did get better educated on direct infringement, induced infringement, Hatch-Waxman (talk about a conflicted doctrine, dear Lord what a mess that piece of legislation has created), etc., but all it really did was create more anxiety as it’s clear that nothing is clear, and anyone who thinks this is a clear cut win/lose has no idea or real-world experience. Those who make such unequivocal and definitive statements pretending to fully understand how this will play out by citing a case or two they researched online, are simply fooling themselves. What does seem to be consistent is actually the inconsistency of each case relying on a particular judges interpretation based on their own predilections, and the inconsistency inherent in Hatch-Waxman, which allows for some leeway based on a balance between encouraging drug innovation and opening pathways for generics. In any event, I’m hanging in with an all-in bet, relying on the court impressions from firsthand attendees,and drinking a lot of wine (sometimes as I gaze out my office window in lower Manhattan wondering WTF am I doing lol!?!?)

[relocatedmetsfan]

TTE - “Sipes”


Has anyone pointed out that Christopher Sipes was lead counsel to a non-profit that filed an amicus curiae brief to the Federal appellate court in the Bayer v Lupin case?

I guarantee that, since day 1 of being on this case, he has been planning how to maneuver around that precedent. And it shows in his questioning of the generics’ witnesses in their depositions. He got them to admit too much.


On another note, the judge will most likely not make a verbal “summary judgement” ruling on this case in favor of Amarin. The generics have provided enough evidence to meet their initial burden of proof with their witnesses (even if their witnesses are less credible than Amarin’s).