InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

md3434

09/09/20 4:14 PM

#297768 RE: north40000 #297758

Is there a chance that they intentionally did not bring this up during oral arguments because they wanted to hold back an item for this type of review/appeal in case the panel found against them?
icon url

marjac

09/09/20 6:10 PM

#297799 RE: north40000 #297758

I agree North. But the only procedural avenue is Singer bringing it up in the en banc petition, which then leads to the questions as to why this was not brought up in the District Court, or even in the appellate briefing before the Panel. Although the issue has all kinds of substantive merit, it may have been waived procedurally, which would be legal malpractice on the part of Covington.
icon url

sts66

09/10/20 4:42 PM

#298107 RE: north40000 #297758

Why could you make this claim when asking for an en banc hearing but not in the 3 judge CAFC DC appeal briefs? Or could Singer have made this “inequitable behavior” claim in the appeal briefs but he failed to do so?
icon url

ziploc_1

09/10/20 4:54 PM

#298113 RE: north40000 #297758

The cropping of the Kura table, which helped the Generics win their case, was unethical or worse and should not be overlooked by the CAFC in the en banc appeal.