Replies to post #271862 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[alm2]

The granting of the patent - are we barking up the wrong tree over the issue of precisely how the patent was first granted -? I am no patent expert but is this not a process which is viewed in the round ? - the patent was granted - most important point-and by the application of all the principles to be applied in considering whether or not to actually grant a patent .
The fact that prior art led the patent examiner in his unique consideration of the application to determine there was obviousness did not adversely affect the patent application - it was granted - in his unique consideration by virtue of the secondary tests- which it is to be stressed are not secondary in value as opposed to a consideration of obviousness -but are simply a second part of the process . On the contrary secondary considerations may well carry very significant weight - one secondary consideration alone may lead to patent grant.
It is a unique consideration by the patent examiner

The simply fact was that the patent was granted - how it came to be granted does not reveal an issue of weakness - it is a grant or a refusal- it was a grant
The application for a patent and how it is granted is a different concept and process from the matter in issue in patent litigation
Indeed the starting point of such litigation is that the patent - those the subject of litigation is/ are entirely valid
In litigation it falls on the party asserting invalidity to prove - in a clearly defined manner -based on the evidence that the patent is invalid
The genetics of course - via Du decision did just this - proved before the district court the patents were invalid
The real issue is that Du reached the wrong decision -by serious error of fact and serious error in procedure
The appeal will be the test of whether in law it is viewed that indeed she reached the wrong decision

Du was not the patent examiner. She was a judge obliged in her court and jurisdiction to correctly interpret the facts and apply the appropriate legal precedents as to patent litigation

She did not
Alm

[postes]

Kiwi...good questions


If the patent was so weak ...why did Teva settle and if its really as weak as some surmise ...why would Hikma and Dr Reddy have settled pre trial anyway ?

This whole idea of " Amarin should have settled ". What if no offer of settlement was good enough for the Generics ?

In comes down to economics for the generics.
No settlement and you win you get 300 million in sales ( current V sales of 600 million cut in half for generic pricing )
Split up amongst at least three generic companies...so over the course of the next 9 years you get 900 million in sales per generic max.

No settlement and you lose
You get nothing for 9 years in the meantime AMRN has built the V franchise to a min of 3 billion a year on a foundation of rock...more than likely V. has so much momentum that the drug sells itself for some time...and then generics get the lottery.

Settlement get some money and a 6-12 months early entry...better than no settlement and losing in fact if I was the generics an I didn't settle I would not want to win at trial.

Some people don't think the generics care but they are in business for the long haul and to do what is best for their companies.

The prevailing thought is that because they won the trial they benefit from the victory could not be farther from the truth...generics and AMRN and the public all lose by the generics winning trial.

There are also some real loyal AMRN cheerleaders that just don't want any blame to be on AMRN or the management...
Judge DU however catastrophic her ruling is is secondary to AMRN abdicating the future of the Company on an unknown quanity
1000% of this catastrophe is on AMRN first and Judge Du second.

[Will Lar]

My views on this after reading your and elm's posts:

1. Amarin is responsible for getting us into this legal mess.

Amarin and Covington should be more aware than us of the fact that judge or legal system can deviate from the patent system. This should be considered when they decide to pursue a litigation.

I personally do think Amarin's patent portfolio carries risk because of the fact that EPA and O3 sciences have a much longer history than the company. I give the company a lot of credit for building the portfolio. But I do believe that the company is over-confident on how strong and defensible their patents are. The initial patent rejections should provide some alarms to them. But it doesn't seem they take these seriously, or it could be Covington's oversight.

I understand that Du made mistakes. But the question is whether these mistakes are serious enough to secure a reversal or remand. From what I read, it does seem to me that this is a "close" call.


2. Settlement is a business decision. Has Amarin tried hard on this?

Generics don't necessarily have the same business goal. Hence Teva settled, but H&R didn't. It could be the case that what H&R wanted is way out of their league. What is not clear to me is whether Amarin put in any serious effort to negotiate a settlement with H&R. I know that the court arranged something, but wasn't successful. In any case, I would expect Amarin to try very hard to negotiate a deal with H&R. If I know they put in all the effort but they failed, I feel it's more justified to accept the litigation route and accept the bad luck. Have they ever said something like this - despite all our effort, there is irreconcilable difference between us and H&R, so ... Did they try very hard on settling? If not, then they're "reckless" considering what I learned in #1.


My goal of participating in this effort is really trying to figure out whether the management serves their fiduciary duty in making all their decisions along the way. I heard JT's stating they can create significant shareholder value all these years, but after ten years, I see little value increase but tripping on a big landmine. I want to know why he said what he said.