eight, what about the following clear factual errors Du committed:
1) "In light of the statistically significant different effects reported between the EPA and control groups, a POSA would have attributed the reduction in Apo B to EPA", p.30 of the bench order
2) "while the Patent Office found that a decrease in Apo B was an unexpected benefit constituting a valid secondary consideration, the Patent Office's examiner did not consider Kura", p.66 of the bench order
3) "Kura disclosed that EPA reduced Apo B", p.58 of bench order
4) "The results reported in Kura do not suggest any interaction or synergy between EPA and estriol", p.30 of the bench order
5) "Mori found the EPA did not raise LDL-C levels", p.66 of bench order
6) "Kura suggested that EPA reduced Apo B", p.66 of bench order
7) "this view does not appear to account for Mori", p.68 of the bench order
Probably there are other factual errors that I might have missed.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
