Replies to post #306723 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[Number sleven]

Sts, Based on the bolded section of the judges ruling, a question. Is the judge claiming that based on the anda label doctors are likely to prescribe for more than 12 weeks often enough to prove inducement? If that is correct then I would certainly think that label woud serve as proof of R-IT patent inducement.
Sleven,

[ziploc_1]

sts...judge Du ruled on two claims by the defendants...

1. Inducement of infringement
2. obviousness

-on claim 1. she ruled in favor of Amarin that the use of Vascepa for more than 12 weeks would constitute an infringement on the R-IT label
-on claim 2. she ruled for the defendants on obviousness

The en banc appeal concerns only the finding of obviousness, in which Amarin 's position is that the cropping of the Kura table and the errors in Mori, as outlined by Dr.Bhatt, steered the court in the direction of discounting the secondary considerations because of prima facie evidence...leading to a conclusion of obviousness.