Replies to post #272502 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[rosemountbomber]

Thanks. Bothersome:

"In the meantime, the prima facie obviousness framework continues to be employed by many Federal Circuit panels and district courts."

[Bill B]

Well hell. That's depressing.

[invest2992]

Just reread the article you posted. Du seems to have fallen into all the traps the “Deere” justices worried about.
Interesting that Judge Newman called for en banc review: “It is time to restore conformity to precedent, in the interest of stability of practice and procedure, and predictability and fairness of result. I would reestablish the proper analytic criteria under the four Graham factors….” The current appeal by Amarin would appear to be an ideal candidate for an en banc review. So many mistakes made by Du.

[ziploc_1]

Montana..."courts should not make any determinations of obviousness, prima facie or otherwise, prior to considering objective indicia of nonobviousness"

The strategy of judge Du evolved in the following manner to reach her decision
ERROR 1. The USPTO did NOT consider Mori and Kura in making their decision...when they ACTUALLY DID consider both.
ERROR 2 .Mori and Kura were Prima Facie evidence of invalidity...despite errors intrinsic to both studies
ERROR 3. The USPTO initial disapproval of Amarin's patent...before their eventual approval of the patent, constituted Prima Facie evidence favoring invalidity
ERROR 4. the secondary concerns, which were positive, were weighed against a non existent negative concern to support a verdict of invalidity.

[amarininvestor]

Thanks for. posting this. Nice article and very informative. I also read the federal cases associated with it.

Overall, I continue to believe that the federal cases mentioned in the article came to a ruling that is sound to me regardless of the precedure used to weight the Graham factors [so that should be a good sign of what to expect on Amarin's case]. There is an exception thought where I am not sure what to think:

The INTERCONTINENTAL GREAT BRANDS V. KELLOGG.
Majority determined that invention was so obvious that despite overwhelming secondary considerations they ruled (agreeing with DC) that invention was obvious. I read also the dissenting opinion by Judge Reyna. I believe that Reyna makes excellent points. However my intuition (I know not a legal standard) indicate to me that the invention was just so exceedingly obvious so I am not sure that any secondary (as the majority of judges agreed, and Reyna dissented) would be sufficient to change that fact. [Thus far this is the only FC ruling that is casting in my mind some doubts about a potential negative outcome for amarin....albeit I think that amarin case is stronger]



here is the case:
http://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/opinions-orders/15-2082.Opinion.9-5-2017.1.PDF