Replies to post #322948 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[dukesking]

Fascinating and very well written evidence of DU’s blunder and debunks any notion of obviousness. Hopefully this can be used in evidence during the Rule 60 motion. Very interesting names associated with this link. Thanks for posting it.

[alm2]

HinduKush/ marjac -

Have you see this ??

All will no doubt wish to consider this !!!!!!!

Alm

[marjac]

Thanks for re-posting. As I stated in my reply to situ, we will print and add to the file. I think HK has hit most if not all of these points through his analysis, but this great to have to further strengthen the presentation.

[HinduKush]

I saw this, even discussed this directly with the author. Nothing new argument wise has arisen, since this was posted in Sep 2020. The errors are profound visible and easy to see. The fundamental premise of this author's analysis is I believe correct. The scale of the blunders in statistical analysis and scientific logic enacted (unchallenged) by HIKMA/ Heinecke is of monumental proportions. How a court accepted this, and how plaintiffs allowed it to happen remains an unsolved mystery.
HK

[sts66]

Great post, but he didn't have to waste so much time tearing apart Kura - forget what's in the Table 3 - the text in the paper in the paragraph above the paper says "no stat sig diffs in Apo-B"! And he also doesn't appear to know that the USPTO *did* review Kura - that's why the patent was awarded - the examiner correctly understood it said no stat sig diffs.