Replies to post #278619 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[moonotaur]

Not an attorney but reading through it, it seems FRE 201 would come into play here. Stats are highly indisputable facts.

I don’t think this Bhatt paper coming out now was a coincidence. Someone knows what they are doing (finally).

[HinduKush]

From what you cited: Wasn't the statistical analysis of Mori misrepresented by the Generics and wasn't the statistical methods and outcome also an "adjuudicative fact not subject to reasonable dispute" (by anyone knowing an iota os statistical methodology?

b. Rule 201
Under FRE 201, federal courts of appeals can take judicial
notice of highly indisputable facts or other court proceedings
that directly relate to the issues on appeal. The general rule of
appellate review based on a closed record "is subject to the right
of an appellate court in a proper case to take judicial notice of
new developments not considered by the lower court."1 7 Parties
may in consequence seek to supplement the appellate record
with new materials that meet the FRE 201 requirements.
The Rule provides that, at any stage of the proceedings, a
federal court of appeals may take judicial notice of "adjudicative
facts" that are not subject to reasonable dispute because they are
"generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial
court" or "can be accurately and readily determined from
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."
Thus, a "high degree of indisputability is the essential
prerequisite" to courts' taking judicial notice.'

[Whalatane]

Montana. thx for posting this .

A hurdle for Amarin is. .. why didn't either they, Bhatt or Covington , research the statistical analysis of Mori before trial ?

Nevertheless

Judicial notice under FRE 201 is generally limited to highly indisputable facts or judicial proceedings that bear a direct connection to the issues on appeal.

..appears to offer a way to get Caufman , Bhatt et al's paper introduced.

Kiwi

[NickHous]

After reading (it's hard for non-lawyer like me) would the furthering of Bhatt's statistical analysis on Mori study be within the "SCOPE" of relating to the original district court trial? I guess my question is for a lawyer type is "SCOPE" an all encompassing method to pore over the presented evidence in the lower court case (maybe throw this damned word back at them) and it becomes "OBVIOUS" that further statistical analysis (it was even mentioned that this statistical analysis was almost rudimentary even to a novice statistician) should have been part of the "SCOPE" by an expert judge ruling on such a case and should have been performed.

Definition of Scope below:

the extent of the area or subject matter that something deals with or to which it is relevant.

Just trying to wrap my head around the admissibility of Bhatt's analysis of Mori and how it would/could be accepted in appeals court.

I mean if Du relied on statistics to rule based on Mori trial analysis, then shouldn't further statistics be allowed on this trial if it formed the basis for her opinion? Since it should be assumed than an "expert" such as she would know all about the analysis involved and would know to further her statistical work into the Mori trial to prove her obviousness. (Yes, sarcasm intended, but trying to argue a point here).

Sorry if already "Bhatted" around by someone else.

[HinduKush]

Montana
Were eyou thinking of Rule 201?
b. Rule 201
Under FRE 201, federal courts of appeals can take judicial
notice of highly indisputable facts or other court proceedings
that directly relate to the issues on appeal. The general rule of
appellate review based on a closed record "is subject to the right
of an appellate court in a proper case to take judicial notice of
new developments not considered by the lower court."1 7 Parties
may in consequence seek to supplement the appellate record
with new materials that meet the FRE 201 requirements.
The Rule provides that, at any stage of the proceedings, a
federal court of appeals may take judicial notice of "adjudicative
facts" that are not subject to reasonable dispute because they are
"generally known within the territorial jurisdiction of the trial
court" or "can be accurately and readily determined from
sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned."
Thus, a "high degree of indisputability is the essential
prerequisite" to courts' taking judicial notice.'
In addition to highly indisputable facts relating to a pending
case, the federal courts of appeals may take judicial notice of a
proceeding in another court if the proceeding has a direct
when the parties are willing to stipulate to its accuracy and to its inclusion in the appellate
record."); cf Jones v. Jackson Natl. Life Ins. Co., 819 F. Supp. 1385, 1387 (W.D. Mich.
1993) (refusing to augment district court record on the basis of parties' stipulation, and
pointing out that "[t]o the extent there may be an 'inherent equitable power' to supplement
the record exceeding the power provided in Rule 10(e), such power is to be exercised not
by this Court, but by the Court of Appeals") (citations omitted). See infra Part II(a)(2) for a
discussion of courts' inherent equitable power. Individual courts may also have local rules
that permit supplementation of the appellate record with unopposed materials.
... a federal court of appeals may take judicial
notice of the relevant state court documents even if they were
not a part of the district court record