Replies to post #273882 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[eightisenough]

MONT-Do you mean VLDL v. LDL? If not please tell me which pg. it is in the brief.
thanks

[HinduKush]

MS eight
HDG outlines this well

new evidence / fact are not permitted (the District Court (DC) documents could be used)
- meanwhile the Federal Circuit (CAFC) is not obligated to defer to the DC, any factual findings determined by the DC should – technically- be subject to deference by the CAFC and usually they are deferring except clear error (a clear mistake was made, rather than finding that the CAFC disagrees with the finding by the DC).
- legal obviousness / analysis is not equal with FDA approvability or scientific acceptance … the burden is lower: teaching, suggestion on motivation (TSM) is enough … in case of no TSM, “obvious to try” could be enough also.
If something was not published in a peer reviewed medical journal, in a Nutritional journal only does not matter … it is part of the prior art

So this nebulous TSM standard of judicial vagueness is the intangible threat
HK

[ziploc_1]

Montana...QUOTE "appellate court would not revisit "factual findings"

The appellate court can review CLEAR ERRORS OF FACT....MORI "facts" were CLEARLY in ERROR...What the appellate court can not review is interpretation of legitimate facts...Mori "facts" were clearly not legitimate.