Replies to post #266453 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[postes]

Hamoa..Is this a slam dunk, layup or freethrow?

[DKNY1]

I forwarded your revised post to Elisabeth

[Jimcal22]

HDG and Hamoa,

Thank you and all other legal minds for adding your expertise and your valuable time to scour these documents to look for errors that support a successful overturn of Judge Du’s decision.

A written thank you in a message board seems insufficient but completely sincere.

Jimcal22

[The Irishman]

Hamoa & HDG:
There appears to be a great deal of enthusiasm regarding your work. I know that we are all so very grateful. I’m very appreciative of the effort of so many on this board. So many awesome thoughts and ideas shared by so many. I think this clearly demonstrates the tenacity of this board. It’s our company and we aim to protect it!

Having said that, I pray that we have more than enough to reverse this travesty and to have it done soon.

Well done you two.
Be well and God Bless this company, investors and the patients this drug will help.

[zz1]

Outstanding DD Hamoa and HD

[VuBru]

Hamoa - Great job. Please forward to the company for use in the appeal ((in case they missed it).

[Will Lar]

Hamoa, thank you! Just curious - can you think of any reason why defendants' legal team made that assertion instead of going along with their own witness's comments?

Intentionally misleading the case could be one explanation if we like conspiracy theory. However, any other reasons?

[Value in the end]

HDG and Hamoa and several others. Thank you for keeping us sane

[alm2]

Hamoa /HDG-a most important point arising from this - we must not loose sight of the fact that the appeal court must consider - as Du should have done - each of the individual patents - amarin did not need to win on all of the patents in this litigation - just one would do - or so it is my understanding
this particular patent - 677 seems to be be robustly (a JTism) protected from a finding of obviousness within the context of the evidence and the patent to which you both refer in this analysis
This issue -split findings on the numerous patents in litigation -was referred to at some length in the Jefferson interview - as I understand it it is a rarity in patent litigation for ALL ( as in this amarin case) patents to be ruled as invalid
The fact that multiple patents were in litigation here has not been deeply considered- save now by reference to 677
I suspect further detailed examination of each of the patents and what each actually assert / and how each was dealt with evidentially may throw up further fertile lines of attack for the appeal - has Du considered each patent in detail and without serious error as to findings of fact relative to each particular patent
But equally if I be right on appeal we only need win on one patent being considered valid to stop generics

Your views as ever would be most welcome
Alm

[alm2]

Hamoa /HDG-a most important point arising from this - we must not loose sight of the fact that the appeal court must consider - as Du should have done - each of the individual patents - amarin did not need to win on all of the patents in this litigation - just one would do - or so it is my understanding this particular patent - 677 seems to be be robustly (a JTism) protected from a finding of obviousness within the context of the evidence and the patent to which you both refer in this analysis
This issue was -split findings on the numerous patents in litigation -referred to at some length in the Jefferson interview - as I understand it it is a rarity in patent litigation for ALL ( as in this amarin case) patents to be ruled as invalid
The fact that multiple patents were in litigation here has not been deeply considered- save now by reference to 677
I suspect further detailed examination of each of the patents and what each actually assert / and how each was dealt with evidentially may throw up further fertile lines of attack for the appeal - has Du considered each patent in detail and without serious error as to findings of fact relative to each particular patent