News Focus
News Focus
icon url

marjac

03/30/20 11:07 PM

#258428 RE: jessellivermore #258422

Agreed! Certainly not enough to meet the 'clear and convincing' standard of proving obviousness. A heinous effort from Judge Du.
icon url

marjac

03/30/20 11:16 PM

#258436 RE: jessellivermore #258422

"The judge is either corrupt or lacks the mental skills which a judge needs ...."

Perhaps never a truer statement has been made on this Board. So much damage, so much destruction cause by at best, utter incompetence, and at worst, something more sinister.
icon url

Sluicebox

03/31/20 5:31 AM

#258546 RE: jessellivermore #258422

Three trials were mentioned andrefered to, right ?
Should we not look at the other two trial also and what do they tell?
icon url

smarterer

03/31/20 9:48 AM

#258764 RE: jessellivermore #258422

So a question for attorneys here: if the judge made her judgment on a misunderstanding of the scientific findings of the study on which she based her determination, does that provide grounds for an appeal?

Not familiar enough with patent costs to even form an opinion. Are there precedents for a decision like yesterday's to get reversed? If so, what does that process look like? And do any of the attorneys familiar with patent law have an opinion on the caliber of the firm and the actual attorneys involved in the litigating on Amarin's behalf?

Thanks for any thoughts on this regard.