Ignoring my claim about whether there exist at least one patient with triglycerides level >500 mg/dL, I find a bigger issue in Hayashi is that the judge relies on Hayashi's conclusion that is based on statistically non-significant values.
When Hayashi says "although a decrease in LDL-C was noted (Table I)", he refers to Table I, copied below:
Note that the change is statistically NOT significant.
That said, Hayashi's claim that "purified icosapentate apparently has no deleterious effect on plasma LDL-C or HDL-C in patients with FCH" appears to be correct.
This post is probably not relevant for the legal case, but I thought I'd point that out in case it might matter. I'm primarily disappointed that of all the various studies related to effects of EPA, the defendant is able to convince the judge based on a cherry picked study.