InvestorsHub Logo

yudilks

06/27/20 3:31 AM

#283139 RE: funnygi2 #283138

Or it also means that he never received all our inputs?

JDUR

06/27/20 4:55 AM

#283142 RE: funnygi2 #283138

One of my favorite responses in the initial brief (footnote)

"4 Unfortunately, in reprinting Table 3 of Kurabayashi’s Apo-B results, the district court’s opinion cut off the inter-group statistical comparison. (Compare Appx30 with Appx88404.) Defendants’ proposed findings of fact did so as well. (Appx102826.)"

ziploc_1

06/27/20 6:06 AM

#283144 RE: funnygi2 #283138

fun...Singer did mention the cropped table in the brief, but surprisingly not in the rebuttal...the table was apparently cropped by the defense attorneys...this fact could be elicited by testimony under oath in a court case to provide evidence of judicial misconduct by the defendants in the judge Du trial..The defense attorneys would probably say that it was just an innocent error, but it did have tremendous bearing on the case... This issue could be referred to in a future case against the Generics in event we lose the CAFC appeal and need to appeal to the SC.

rafunrafun

06/27/20 9:30 AM

#283159 RE: funnygi2 #283138

Good point. Appears that Singer stayed away from any statistics. Would love to ask hik why.

Bouf

06/27/20 10:24 AM

#283170 RE: funnygi2 #283138

As stated on this board before, the Bhaat paper was not presented at trial and is not in the appeal record.