Replies to post #264672 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[venus537]

You make a convincing case that Amarin has a good chance to win on appeal. Is there any chance the generics think the same as you?

Meaning they thought their best chance of winning the case was on infringement and never dreamed they would win on obviousness and they know they'll lose this on appeal so they'll consider a settlement? I know, probably a long shot.

Is there any chance the generics could win the infringement case on appeal?

Winning on appeal for obviousness to only lose on infringement would probably send us all off the ledge.

[rosemountbomber]

Hamoa, or anyone else who cares to respond, not sure if this isolation has fried my brain cells, but can anyone tell me why did the defendants enter the Kurabayashi study into evidence? What were they claiming that the study showed in terms of helping their argument. TIA

[KevGee59]

Why would the US PTO have referenced Kura in the 1st place if it had no relevance towards the Patent?

KG ;)

[HDGabor]

H-

Judge Du’s elimination of “unexpected benefit” from the secondary considerations for Vascepa, and as such, it’s very likely that it was also the basis for her invalidation of the patents.

I think it is 100%. The USPTO granted the patents based on “unexpected benefit” and "long felt need". She confirmed the "long felt need", found "commercial success" but decline the “unexpected benefit” … and invalidated the patents.

I see as the case come down to two thing:

(i) less relevant (but important)

the Patent Office’s examiner did not consider Kurabayashi

I did not see / find anything regarding of this. What is her basis? (She refer to (ECF No. 373 at 246-47.)

(ii) I see it as a "win or loss" point (ECF No. 367 (Id. at 737:24-738:8.))

In light of the statistically-significant differential effects reported between the EPA and control groups, a POSA would have attributed the reduction in Apo B to EPA.

It is the "only" mistake about Kurabayashi, otherwise she is factual (re this study). I see two "reason" behind it:
(a) she misread / interpreted wrongly the docs … could be lead to the win
(b) She understand the study, see EPA + e arm reduction as "obvious" but express herself wrongly … meanwhile win is still possible, less chance for overturn

Has anybody the ECF No. 367 (Id. at 737:24-738:8.)?

Best,
G

[alm2]

Can you please apply your brilliant mind and unstinting effort to the Mori aspect of her ruling also ? ...both require the same level of scrutiny - both represent serious errors of fact by Du and are vital aspects of the appeal - as you so clearly set here as to Kur study - let’s do the same job as Mori - we have a double edged sword here in this appeal
Please send this to amarin/ Covington
Exceptional work -thank you
Alm

[Bolio98]

Thank you Hamoa.