Replies to post #297046 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[MontanaState83]

Interesting thought

[Dancing in the dark]

instead of focusing litigation on whether or not the generic manufacturers are actively PROMOTING their “skinny labeled” generic for patent-protected reduce-it IP uses,

the argument could be made that by PRODUCING generic icosapent ethyl in a quantity in excess of that required to fulfill Rxs to treat the MARINE indication, the generic manufacturers are inducing infringement on the reduce-it IP.

just for example purposes:

MARINE indication: 1,000 treatable people
REDUCE-IT indication: 30,000 treatable people

the argument could be made that should sufficient generic icosapent ethyl be produced by generic manufacturers to treat 2,000 people, the quantity produced by the generic manufacturers to treat the additional (2000-1000=1000) 1,000 people was produced to treat patients other than the MARINE indication.

[marjac]

That's along the line that I have been thinking. Judge Du found infringement, but ruled against Amarin based upon obviousness. Nothing obvious about the Reduce-It indication.

[alm2]

Correct - and Amarin seeks injunction to prevent infringement - and if they obtain such generics are toast
Alm

[sts66]

Interesting idea, but it requires knowledge of how much GV is being produced and sold - does Iqvia or Symphony measure generic sales by company (does anyone but Teva sell GL)? Can't count on generics breaking out revenue by drug, they sell hundreds of drugs and that info likely isn't in SEC filings nor is it required to be. If all GV sales are lumped into one number how do you know who may be infringing?

[moonotaur]

This is actually brilliant.

[Dancing in the dark]

argue