Replies to post #262403 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[HDGabor]

j-

Legal hypothesis is less rigid than scientific. e,g.:

For example, to find a patent invalid, a factfinder would have to point to a suggestion in the prior art, perhaps in a published trade article, that component A of an invention might be improved by combining it with component B. If the challenged patent is composed of A and B, then the suggestion in the prior art could be cited to justify finding the patent obvious and invalid.

Best,
G

[ggwpq]

j, what we don't know is what's the standard required to be qualified as "prior art". It might not need to require "hypothesis generating". Du seems to imply all she needs is the existence of any EPA/DHA scientific trial papers that she could infer any kind of potential EPA benefit on LDL/ApoB. Seems to me the clear and convincing evidence standard need not be applied to prior arts (how can it? Since non of those studies are clear and convincing), but only by looking at the Graham four factors together which Du did not perform. Unfortunately, some Federal Judges' allowance of the Prima facie-rebuttal approach, which weaken the the clear and convincing evidence standard required, might let Du get away with the murder.