Replies to post #278250 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[rafunrafun]

Is there no some sort of an exception (extraordinary) clause for rare cases where new evidence has been discovered?

If Amarin can't get this in, I fully expect a gigantic, winnable class action lawsuit against Covington (for ineffective counsel), and would be shocked if Marjac has not started drafting the Complaint yet :-)

This is shocking, mindboggling stuff.

[ziploc_1]

Could the statistical error still be submitted in an Amicus brief?

[north40000]

"The basic problem is the rule that you can’t bring up on appeal for the first time an argument that was not raised before the trial court."

I agree. That is a problem. But there may be a way it can be finessed. Let's see what the defendants' briefs have to say after Dr Bhatt's paper is brought to their attention.

If Dr. Bhatt's analysis is correct, the ethics of defendants winning on an error in statistical analysis by the court presents a bigger problem to defendants, IMO.

[juslin]

According to Bhatt this is being raised now because the math error was discovered recently due to the publicity of the case (after Du's ruling?) so if Du didn't have the complete picture and used erroneous information to come to her conclusion, how can the appeals court not allow this information to be brought up? It's like having a working compass, but you'd rather use a broken one to navigate your way.

[rosemountbomber]

Is this something that even Singer missed?

[rosemountbomber]

"The basic problem is the rule that you can’t bring up on appeal for the first time an argument that was not raised before the trial court."

In the paper they address your concern this way:

"Furthermore, our detection of an error in the prior art does not constitute new evidence in the case that could not be considered by the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. Rather, our observation constitutes a re-interpretation of evidence that was already cited multiple times in the judge’s opinion."

[Whalatane]

Bouf. from the document

Furthermore, our detection of an error in the prior art does not constitute new evidence in the case

Your opinion ?
North raises an interesting pt ...if the attorneys for the generics concede there was a statistical error ...what then ?

Kiwi