HDG, I would imagine, you would appreciate the procedural error the Harvard Lawyer pointed to, as grounds to overturn the ruling. She considered the Primary "Obviousness" in a vacuum. When the law is properly applied, can can work beautifully.
The seconardy considerations of: Was an unmet need met?, Was it successful?, and Was it commercialized? Yes on all. In the real world, and not in the one Du apparently lives in, these critical elements are meaningless. Decisions should live only in the past, and cannot be informed from the present.
- In two mirror cases, these two considerations were, as a matter of "law", the appropriate application to inform the judges final decision. Primary + Secondary = due process under the law.
- Since the Generics were the ones suing to deligitmize Amarin's pattents, the burden of disproving the secondary conditions must rest on the Generics. She didn't do it. Why? That's a MAJOR error. Worse, she turns to Amarin, where the burden should not rest, and asks them to address the secondary. Why?
- Du did not apply the law to a standard that offers the greatest level of protections. Instead, her actions seem as if she went out of her way to ensure she didn't. She won round one. But the law, when elegantly applied, offers round two. This time, there will be three Judges I hear, two of them are HUGELY in favor of proceedures.
- Finally, Trump's second in command in charge of the U.S. supply chain, believes we are dangerously depend on foreign pharmeutical companies, and he wants to change it yesterday. This case would raise his temperature to an extent I can only imagine.
ILT
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
