raf - I have very limited time right now, but held my nose and took a quick look at that MRC material. He predicted Amarin would lose on both obviousness and inducement. Obviously he was wrong about inducement, as he was about mineral oil, RI success etc.
Re obviousness, he cited a 2010 Amarin investor presentation that said prior papers supported DHA raising LDL and EPA being LDL-neutral, including Mori and several others. He (they?) also harped on Epadel in Japan and that the patent was flawed because the examiner didn't seem aware of some of the papers. A good case can be made that small trials on dissimilar subjects are at best hypothesis-generating, as Bhatt et al point out in their recent note.
It's been my experience that for most important inventions, with hindsight one can go back and find people who came at least close to finding it. In fact, there are all kinds of investigations, many of which reach opposite conclusions, and at any time you can find claims on both sides of most important issues, some of which will end up being true in hindsight, when the truth was far from obvious at the time.
For example, Semmelweis clearly proved the value of medical hygiene in the 1860s, twice, and published it. It was rejected despite being widely seen and discussed. After it was re-discovered a decade or so later, people found at least a couple examples of it having been known about decades before Semmelweis. But that was completely overwhelmed by the many "experts" who were so very sure hygiene didn't matter. It was far from obvious long, long after the first people suspected or even knew it.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
