News Focus
News Focus
icon url

Meowza

08/16/20 5:33 PM

#291565 RE: ggwpq #291564

This.

I'd also like to add Judge Du's take on "motivation to combine" is so overly expansive it eclipses objective indicia of long-felt need. Her words:

The Court is persuaded that there was a long-felt need for a drug like Vascepa that could reduce TG levels without raising LDL-C levels, primarily because both sides’ experts testified that patients are more likely to comply with a prescribed treatment regime when they only have to take one pill, rather than two—and the Court relied on this evidence in finding a POSA would be motivated to combine the Lovaza PDR with the finding from Mori that EPA did not raise LDL-C levels

How can anything have a long-felt need without being obvious for motivation to combine? Does anything get patented under Judge Du's precedent?
icon url

MontanaState83

08/16/20 8:51 PM

#291590 RE: ggwpq #291564

Never mind the SCs, I can never get past the fact that the ignorant wench found anything clear and convincing with studies that did not even involve subjects with the patented condition.

Call me crazy but, WTF?