Replies to post #261403 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[juslin]

Totally agree. Why isn't there a law that protects innovators from this kind of indirect infringement? It's the same drug with a new indication. So everything hinged on the Marine IP and a company lost billions in market value not because of the Marine patent loss but perceived/real Reduce It "collateral damage". It again comes down to who will take up the case. Those who are pro patent and innovation will look at the case and favor Amarin. It's going to be another coin flip next year.

[swg_tdr]

beachboat
RE this will "indirectly infringe" on REDUCE-IT patents and yet presribing doctors can't "infringe".

Not true once the generic is in the market. So yes, the Doc will infringe, as follows.

Under Medicare and a (future) generic, say your Doc prescribes Vascepa and for AARP/United this winds up at on tier 4. And then you or your MD asks for an Exception tier ruling because of the high price, --
it would move to tier 3 but there is the ruling that there must be a cheaper, ie generic --which then must be filled. the Doc and Generic would automatically Infringe! SIMPLE, ok?

Now per this iron-clad Medicare ruling, and that hold for all brand names in general, there cannot currently for example be a move of a Vascepa prescription to a lower tier (pricing) exception, because there is no alternative to Vascepa available (at a lower price, lucky they did not put fish oil in as an alt).

No kidding! I just found all this out yesterday when looking for a reduction in a $1,440/year Vascepa expense.