M - things don't add up. I spoke to / read / listened to at least 20 opinions of lawyers (you included). All gave Amarin 40-70% chance of winning. Not a single one thought that rule 36 was even remotely possible, given the strength of Amarin's arguments.
As every attorney thought it was a coin toss at worse, how the heck does the court conclude that Amarin's arguments do not have merit?
And why such cowardness by CAFC, they disagree with Amarin, fine, but why not say WHY they disagree?
This reminds me of having a political debate, I make a logical point and the other side says: wrong, you're a racist... and ends the debate.
WTF was that?!