Replies to post #275339 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[alm2]

Brilliant work - send to amarin / Singer
Alm

[gozips]

HK, very informative post--I forwarded it to Singer.

[ratna1]

Namaste HinduKush! I find your argument not only presented in a lucid manner rare in science but personally enlightening since I have many times tried to decipher these studies - accept for the numbers presented - as I find the language arcane..
Would you take it upon yourself to inform AMARIN and counsel of your conclusions as I believe they can be hardly put in any better way?
TIA

[ilovetech]

HDK, Magnifique! Superb! Enjoyed it start to finish!

ILT

[Restingzebra]

Great post.Thank you very much for this and all others you have posted.

[jessellivermore]

HinduK...

Nice post...What is the case with Du is she "cherry picks" her articles to arrive at the results she wants..Judges are supposed to be impartial and the evidence is clear and overwhelming she is not..This is particularly odius in a bench trial..where the judge is the judge and jury...

She is no judge...She is a liar and a cheat. A disgrace.

":>) JL

[Invest83838]

Great Post HinduKush = Sonam Kapoor :-)))

This post has so much technical detail in it

that you have to be the former Sonam Kapoor ID

since her posts had this kind of detail

Whatever the case, great post!

[Meowza]

Awesome HK, hope ur smarts are rubbing off on me :)

[oneragman]

HK, great argument...the question I have is was that 2nd MORI paper you cite part of the trial record? If it was, great. If not, how do you get it in. My understanding at this point is you don't if it wasn't part of the trial record.

[Jasbg]

Hiku@ Another real capacity put in great effort (hours) in Amarin and Vascepa's fight for justice.

Thank You

Jasbg

[sts66]

Mostly a great post - but was that 2nd Mori paper cited in AMRN patents, was it considered by the USPTO, and was it brought up at the trial? If no to any of them, then it's meaningless, can't be used - AFAIK, even if the first two are "yes", if the 3rd is "no", then it can't be used by Singer in the appeal, not part of the trial record, can't introduce new evidence at the CAFC.

[concapk]

HinduKUSH,

Reviewing the 6 patents invalidated by Judge Du concerning Mori studies in her ruling....

Patent 8293728 ( 4 Mori citings in Patent )
1. year 2000 mori 1,Am.J.Clin Nutr 2000 cited by examiner
2. year 2006 mori 2,Curr.Opinion Clin. cited by examiner
Nutr.Metab.care 2006
3. year 2003 mori volume 35,No. 7, cited by others
pp 772-781, DHA and EPA
Hypertensive TYPE 2 Diabetic
subjects
4. year 1999 mori DHA but not EPA, cited by others
Hypertension

PATENTS 8357677,8318715,8367652,8431560,8518929
1. year 2000 mori Same as above cited by applicant
2. year 2006 mori Same as above cited by applicant
3. year 2003 mori Same as above cited by applicant
4. year 1999 mori Same as above cited by applicant


Please note: I believe that you citing ( Mori paper year 2002, Am J Clin Nutr 2002; 76:1007-15 ) is the same as documented as Mori volume 35,No.7, pp772-782,DHA and EPA Hypertensive Type 2 Diabetics Subjects.

Legal minds on this board.... since these Mori papers are cited in the Patents can't SINGER somehow bring them out in the Appellant Court
Case, refuting Judge Du's opinions concerning Mori. This information would not be considered new to the District Court's briefs and final ruling.