InvestorsHub Logo

IgnoranceIsBliss

04/01/20 9:56 AM

#259522 RE: raistthemage #259520

I was totally unaware that was the 9th Circuit -- OMG

The ruling is so indefensible it is stunning. One would think this has to get overturned on appeal.

The example for ApoB being "obvious" because of the existence of a 20-person study on menopausal Japanese women with trigs < 200. Is she kidding?

I can't honestly say I think the chances of a reversal are 50/50, but my God. How can one not assume some kind of bias here? If things like that make a conclusion "obvious", what isn't obvious?

Sluicebox

04/01/20 11:14 AM

#259605 RE: raistthemage #259520

Its not longer about the marine label, its about the patents that unless the ruling is successfully appealed, means that everyone can produce generic V. Sure under the Marine label, but pharmacists , issuers ect will offer generic V to reduce IT patients. Why would Reddi and Hikma be the only ones able to still challenge Marine ??

HDGabor

04/01/20 11:32 AM

#259617 RE: raistthemage #259520

r-

no filings are possible until December 2022

For R-IT indication … the new, 3 yrs exclusivity does not protect MARINE indication … anybody could file Paragraph VIII (carve-out) ANDA.

Best,
G

iwfal

04/01/20 2:22 PM

#259756 RE: raistthemage #259520

NOT in the 9th circuit which is full of communist activist judges like Du who want to stick it to capitalism.



You’re probably trying to be hyperbolic by calling them communist, but having read many many patent trial rulings (long ago) there is actually a strong tenor among judges that ideas should be free for all to use. But I suspect only part of it is political ideology; much of the rest is about the fact that the judges are lawyers - who are trained on precedent (ie copying).