InvestorsHub Logo

marjac

05/16/20 11:22 PM

#274188 RE: rafunrafun #274187

Yes, complete agreement. That is what my review of the matter concluded as the low-hanging fruit. The generics were under a 'clear and convincing' burden proof as a matter of law. There is no way they can ever meet that elevated burden without judicial chicanery, which is exactly what we got.

breathofthenightwind

05/17/20 12:54 AM

#274194 RE: rafunrafun #274187

The clear and convincing evidence standard applies to the evidence as a whole. There is no burden to prove each fact that supports the overall conclusion of obviousness by clear and convincing evidence. What Mori teaches is a fact for the district court to find using the standard of preponderance of the evidence.

zumantu

05/17/20 1:21 AM

#274197 RE: rafunrafun #274187

Agree, seems a cogent argument

Back2Deuce

05/17/20 1:51 PM

#274295 RE: rafunrafun #274187

Raf, EXACTLY! This by itself should be game over. Throw in for good measure the IMPROPER weighing of the Secondary Considerations against each other and case closed. Amarin should not have been “penalized” for bringing up additional SC’s. That is not the law and this was a CLEAR procedural ERROR.