Replies to post #280542 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[HDGabor]

e-

You're Incorrect-USPTO stated Vascepa obvious to not increase LDL as well. Read Du's ruling she strongly relied on it.

(a) I did not read all USPTO determinations but two of them (2-16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK - Doc 89 - Exhibit 27 & 2-16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK - Doc 262 - Exhibit 18): None of them considered LDL-C or Apo-B effect as PFO

(b) The Order:

Also, this case is unlike many other obviousness cases because, when the Patent Office issued the patents-in-suit, it maintained its finding from earlier rejections that the prior art rendered all of the claims prima facie obvious. (Ex. 1521 at 1822-35, see also id. at 1830-31.) As the examiner explained, “it was concluded that it will be obvious to treat patients having triglycerides above 500 mg/dL with 96% pure ethyl-EPA."

and

"the Examiner concluded that it would be prima facie obvious to treat patients having TG above 500 mg/dl with 96% pure ethyl-EPA"

I stand corrected ... but please cite / quote an USPTO document(s) and / or the relevant part of the Order (about USPTO PFO) that says: LDL-C and/or Apo-B effect is/are PFO acc. to the USPTO ...

Best,
G

[dukesking]

USPTO are not infallible or immune to mistakes. Either way, we have Objective Indicia in spades. Long felt unresolved need, failure of others to determine a solution to the long felt need, it was developed amongst skepticism , prior art teaches away from the applicants invention( MORI favored DHA), recognition of the problem( Mancu?) copying of the invention by competitors( generics), rather than designing around the invention, may also be considered in the determination of non obviousness. Even better is evidence that competitors have tried to design around the applicants invention without success( pharmaceutical EPA/DHA/DPA combos). The court can also consider other factors against obviousness as well. These aren’t my words and I’m paraphrasing some of it from an article on invention protection from Dawsey intellectual property law. FWIW