Just playing devil's advocate but something along the lines of:
"While the district's court language is imperfect, the presumption of validity does not relieve the patentee of any responsibility to set forth evidence in opposition to a challenger’s prima facie case which, if left unrebutted, would be sufficient to establish obviousness."
"Amarin fails to meet that responsibility. We affirm."
The above is an amalgamation of Novo and Zup. While I think Amarin's case is distinguished from Novo and has presented strong arguments of the district court's myriad clear errors that are impossible to ignore, could a panel of judges arrive at a reading like the above?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
