Replies to post #274249 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[HinduKush]

Exactly right.

Mori reported a rise in LDL for EPA. It just wasn't statistically significant. If anything, Mori suggests but does not prove EPA raises LDL like everything else did.

https://documentcloud.adobe.com/link/review/?pageNum=1&uri=urn%3Aaaid%3Ascds%3AUS%3A8954babd-7c41-45ef-ba7c-d40029f31f88

As you point out, Table 2 middle EPA-column LDL cholesterol
Rise in LDL not statistically significant- failure to disprove the null hypothesis in a sample size of n=20 would have most statisticians laughing in their beer.

Mori showed unequivocally that a POSA would need a much larger sample size to say anything or suggest anything on the matter.. “clear and convincing” hmmm
HK

[Lemmiwinks]

Right on...otherwise nothing but divine inspiration would ever be patentable. Ludicrous. Just ludicrous.
Lem

[breathofthenightwind]

I am not talking about statistical significance. And Mori doesn't have to prove anything. My understanding is that Mori said something like: “DHA caused an increase in LDL-C while EPA was different.” If that’s wrong, fine, I’m wrong. It happens. I am not trying to be dishonest here.

I don’t understand your comment about anticipation and obviousness.

I don’t have the time to try to find case law about the point I was making with respect to burdens of proof. I think it is pretty much black letter law, not just for patent law, but for all law. Suppose someone is charged with murder. The state has to prove a number of things: that a murder occurred, that the defendant had means, motive, opportunity, etc. All of the things that need to be proved must, collectively, add up to conclusion, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the defendant did it. But the state does not have to prove each thing, individually, beyond a reasonable doubt.