I agree with you entirely with one caveat. There should be a pool of judges assigned to hear complex scientific cases. That said we had control of the venue selection. Covington thought we can’t lose this. They operated as such. To miss a cropped table is inexcusable. It would have been a defining moment. If HK can establish what went wrong retroactively it points to our legal team wasn’t prepared. It’s absurd to keep beating the drum Republican appointed judges would have treated us more fairly. It’s conspiratorial speculation at best. We should never have gotten here. Why didn’t management have Bhatt’s study completed? They had an eternity to be prepared for this trial. They could have asked for a delay if need be. JT should have given the house to generics to settle, if it had taken $50 -100 million so be it. On and on…we need some fresh blood running the company.
John - Excellent synopses! I only differ in that CAFC judges aren’t clean in this. They did not read the briefs IMHO and they are biased politically if you get my drift. Also, Du doesn’t get a pass. Biased as well and not smart to understand the science (though that’s where good lawyering comes in).
Just brainstorming but is this something that you want to collaboratively take on, suing the snot out of Covington for ineffective counsel?
Hindu demonstrates the above with his charts and brilliant explanations, especially pointing out the fact that Bhatt-like paper needed to be presented at trial and Marjac handles the legal aspects?
Johnny., Right on! Commentary suggests that any further appeal is a "long" shot. That it rests on a buy-in from the majority liberal 9th circuit with three having ruled against us.
Even a layman 'non law brain' understand what your saying - and that says something' about your skill in in explaining the complicated route of 'Amarin being "killed" legally in USA.
An all together very sad story - no matter how you look at it. ------------
Important that you point to 'not the Legal system - being at fault here' - rather 'it were the defense in original case - that 'blow it completely'.
You have to be clear sited and into US Law to see through it all - and you to a big extend actually 'defending' that there after all is 'some sense' to US Legal Systems - should in the end comfort everyone believing in the 'value of democracy' in your big country.