Meowza, this is everything I said about Mori in the message you referred to:
“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).”
How you find “you stated Mori creates an expectation that EPA lowers LDL” in those two paragraphs is beyond me. Actually, I do think that Mori, TAKEN ALONE, can be read as suggesting that EPA reduces triglycerides without raising LDL-C. But the law requires that Mori not be taken alone, all the prior art must be considered.
I don’t mean to offend you, but I don’t think our conversations are productive. So I will probably not respond if you respond to this message.
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
