Replies to post #263639 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[money_man]

He's amongst us obviously

[goamrn]

AI, thanks for sharing this. In the article,

"The first and most important question is whether Amarin made any of these arguments at trial. If not, then they are essentially waived. You cannot raise new arguments on appeal." Isn't this shifting burden to AMRN and if so can AMRN bring this back up in appeal?

Frankly, I did not realize the patent legal system is in such a poor state till this case. You cannot appeal on a mis-interpretation of evidence that was intentionally brought by defendant and misled the district judge? Does court expects plaintiff lawyers to be super-human that can capture all error in the limited time they are given? Law should prevail and not defy common sense.

[juslin]

So according to this person, Amarin can't refute judge Du's error in interpreting Kayubayashi in appeal because it wasn't brought up during trial, but no one knew how she would interpret the data until her final decision was made public. How is that right? Whether Amarin's lawyers brought this up or not should not matter. An error of fact was made in determining obviousness has to be corrected, can they let that glaring error stand?

[amarininvestor]

This parts of the blog sounds incredible. So if I understand correctly Amarin cannot raise in its appeal that Dr. Heinecke interpretation fo the data is correct in terms of a change with respect with baseline but that the judge incorrectly attribute this to a change vs control arm?

Please someone with

The first and most important question is whether Amarin made any of these arguments at trial. If not, then they are essentially waived. You cannot raise new arguments on appeal.

Focusing on the merits of whether Judge Du’s opinion misinterpreted Table 3 of Kurabayashi, this is a relatively technical statistical question on which expert opinion is likely warranted.

That scientist is Dr. Heinecke, who was the generics’ invalidity expert at trial. The generics cite Dr. Heinecke’s trial testimony in their proposed findings of fact on the interpretation of Table 3 from Kurabayashi that finds 6.9% reduction of Apo-B in the EPA group to be significant. Judge Du appears to have credited Dr. Heinecke’s testimony on this point in the Bench Order. Amarin’s proposed findings of fact do not appear to identify any testimony from the trial—either on the cross-examination of Dr. Heinecke or the direct examination of Dr. Toth (Amarin’s invalidity expert)—that would discredit Dr. Heinecke’s reading of Table 3. This is the lens through which the Federal Circuit will likely review Judge Du’s findings for clear error with respect to Kurabayashi.