Replies to post #323593 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[marjac]

There were something like 2000 Exhibits at this trial. The Proposed Findings of Fact is a crystalized document for the Court to use in formulating its Opinion. The Proposed Findings contained the Cropped Table, not the full Table.

The Court copied the Cropped Table into her Opinion. The Court therefore relied upon the Cropped Table in her Opinion. How do we know the Court relied upon the Cropped Table? Because she copied it into her Opinion.

As for the "open to AMRN argue" point, I addressed that yesterday. Caselaw states that fraud is not waived even if the aggrieved party has not exercised diligence. Caselaw also states that party committing fraud in a patent case is estopped from any claims for relief.

[HinduKush]

Bouf,

It was open to AMRN to argue this point to the court when the generics filed their proposed findings. But we don’t know why they did not. It was also open to AMRN to argue the point on appeal that the trial court decision was based on an erroneous interpretation of the K table.

As a matter of fact, it was indirectly by Singer, in that he was making the case that secondary considerations of obviousness (or non-obviousness thereof) were present and ignored. As amici, we and others expressly and directly stated the case for statistical misrepresentation in clear terms to the CAFC appeals--all was perfunctorily tossed aside with a rule 36 judgement without any judicial stated opinion/reason and no chance given for argument and evidence presentation--an enforced and shameful silencing of rights.

In any event, fraud was perpetrated deliberately. The fact that it was not detected or reported by either party does not detract from it having occurred and needs addressing one way or the other by definitive judgement, as to whether it occurred or not. The cropping is corroborative evidence of intent to defraud, the direct demonstration of misrepresentation and fraudulent use of statistics is rife throughout the HIKMA/Heinecke prior art presentation--it all comes to a head with the mechanics of HOW Kurabayshi and Mori were willfully misrepresented to the court by Heinecke. The court being statistically naive and politically gullible, bought it, hook line and sinker. Covington failed to seize on all this, having already lost the wood from the trees arguing bankrupt theories on LDL effects for TG < and > 500mg/dl which they were never able to prove convincingly, while everyone at Amarin central was also blissfully sleeping at the wheel.
Nevertheless and irrespective of not being pointed out, fraud and misrepresentation DID occur and IS provable by any independent expert statistical review (though to be honest a high schooler with an AP in statistics could tell you the same), IF the same judge (through some vestige of ethical principle) allows it.
HK

[Invest83838]

If the full K Table was included in the Exhibits and/or Evidence

then Judge Du and AMRN lawyers had every chance to review this evidence

and to potentially know that there was a cropped K Table

If this is the case, although:

Judge Du wasn't thorough and relied on / copied the cropped Table; and

The AMRN legal team was also not thorough and missed the use of cropped Table,

Hikma or there expert witnesses can't be faulted because they provided the full K table in the evidence.

Just for the fact AMRN is not pursuing and/or funding this Rule 60 route,

makes me think AMRN realizes that they themselves screwed up

by not being thorough.