Apples and oranges. Science isn’t law. Different standards for different things. Specific factual matters do not need to be shown by clear and convincing evidence. That is a legal point that I think I am right about. But if I am wrong, it should be possible for someone to cite case law showing that I am wrong. I would like to see such case law.
Whether Mori creates an expectation that EPA lowers triglycerides without lowering LDL-C in severe hypertriglyceridemia patients seems like a specific factual matter. So the generics should not need to show this by clear and convincing evidence.
Requiring the patients in Mori to have triglycerides greater than 500 mg/dcl before Mori can be considered in an obviousness analysis confuses the patent law concept of anticipation (where a prior art reference must show exactly the same thing as in a patent claim) with obviousness (where a prior art reference need only suggest what is in a patent claim).
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
