Replies to post #304316 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[Biobillionair]

Moreover, as explained in our Brief, the Therasense case, an en banc decision of the Federal Circuit, holds that when there is a situation of unclean hands/fraud on the court, one does not even have to prove materiality. What Markman did was just rattle off his perceptions based upon his understanding, without actually reading the Brief.

Or the Marksman doesn't want to back track and highlight how irresponsible Amarins great attorneys where when they failed to uncover what we'd clearly laid out in our Amicus.

If the real literal fraud is not addressed then Therasense and a number of other case laws cited have been raped.

BB

[shadolane]

That seems to be the basic problem for those deciding.....not reading the brief.

If they don't then it doesn't matter much how convincing the analysis or arguments.

So far some variance of that has happened twice.

While I applaud the significant effort by the Amarin side I'm skeptical of positive results because of the other player's motivations.

Let's hope for a fair deal.

[Biobillionair]

J Mann – The generics do not have to respond to the Amicus brief, and they may not have the opportunity to do so. For the generics to be in a position where they even have the opportunity to respond, then leave to file the Amicus brief would have to be granted (the brief does not indicate it was filed with the consent of the parties,) and the Court would probably also have to invite a response to Amarin’s en banc petition, which may not happen. With respect to the allegations themselves, putting aside the specific allegation of fraud, the statistical interpretation of Table 3 is an interesting argument that relates to the Kurabayashi discussion that we blogged about extensively in two separate posts back in April 2020. As we discussed at the time, putting aside the merits of the argument, Amarin refrained, for whatever reason, from pressing this argument at trial or in its post-trial briefing. Accordingly, it never became a basis to distinguish the Marine patents over Kuarabayashi either before Judge Du or on appeal, and thus, it is unlikely to move the needle on an en banc petition. With respect to the more particular allegation that a fraud occurred, if the generics do respond to the Amicus brief, they are likely to point out that the entire Kurabayashi article, including the uncropped version of Table 3, was submitted as a separate exhibit into evidence during the trial. They will argue that that essentially negates any finding that the defendants defrauded the court with a cropped version of a table.

In red above: The time table could be the end of this week.

In bold above: This is completely false.

In blue above: The literal lie can not be explained;)