So to suggest that they never settle and/or are never reasonable, is simply not true. Once again, we do not know exactly what each party's settlement position was, because we have not seen any specifics due to the entire process occurring behind closed doors.
Now let's approach this from a different perspective, specifically my view based upon nearly 27 years experience as a lawyer litigating highly contested nasty complex litigation cases. What is more plausible:
A) These generics took a hardball no-settlement position throughout this entire process, including putting that hardball no-settlement position in writing, along with the basis for that hardball no-settlement position, in a court ordered submission to a federal judge; or
B) Amarin settled at 2029 entry with Teva and Apotex, plus costs/legal fees to Teva due to Teva being involved in the case. Amarin was willing to settle at 2029 plus costs/legal fees with H & R, but H & R countered with 8 years like Reddys did in the above Vivus case (2028). Amarin balked.
Based upon nearly 27 years of in-the-trenches experience, (B) is far more plausible than (A). If upon discovery of the actual documents and information down the road, I am proven wrong, so be it. But my instincts tell me that (B) is much closer to the truth than (A).
The mentality blindly adhering to the view that H & R were never going to settle, is detached from the reality of how the federal courts function. From the earliest conference shortly after the pleadings are filed, to the bitter end, litigants are not only encouraged, but almost pressured by the court to seriously explore settlement. Any litigant who arrogantly struts around, unreasonably sneering at that process, especially in a case where summary judgment was denied, usually does so at their own peril.