If yes, should it be the defendants' burden to prove HTG is the same as VHTG since all their prior arts do not include VHTG patients? Yes, but the burden is preponderance of the evidence, not clear and convincing evidence. The clear and convincing standard applies to the overall conclusion of obviousness, not to each fact in dispute.
Do you think the defendants has accomplished that in Du's court? Based on what I’ve read on this board, no. But there is evidence in the record (e.g., expert testimony) upon which Judge Du could have relied in coming to the opposite conclusion. She was there; she is entitled to credit one expert over another – that’s her job.
I guess this comes back to where do you see that a preponderance of evidence showed that HTG and VHTG were essentially the same animal as far treatment is concerned?
This was emphasized by the Amrn legal team and attested to by their medical witnesses but ignored by Du.
The preponderance of evidence was clearly in favor of plaintiffs with respect to FDA regulatory status, medical practice and commercial success. The research, prior art, was validated as "obvious" by Du's use of hindsight and shifting the burden of proof on plaintiffs. Remember, it was Du that made the leap that treatment for TG>500 was equal to treatment for TG<500!
breath... a compendium of some of Judge Du's, errors 1. Mori...wrongly used inappropriate patient group 2. Kura...wrongly discussed the reduction of APO in the EPA group as significant when it was non-sgnificant 3. wrongly used a cropped version of Kura table 4. wrongly said PTO didn't consider Mori and Kura in their Prima Facie evidence decision when they actually did consider them 5. wrongly used non-introduced secondary consideration to weigh against secondary considerations that WERE introduced 6. wrongly underestimated the importance of the secondary considerations that were introduced. 7. wrongly shifted the burden of proof from the defendants to Amarin