HDG, I appreciate your input but I disagree. I’m no lawyer but I don’t see it as apples and oranges at all. I’m saying that Hikma can’t claim blindness to the infringing behavior by claiming they had no knowledge that their product would be used in an infringing manner or that advertising the AB rating wouldn’t encourage infringement. Hikma knows exactly how the system works and they’re going after as many CVD scripts as they can get through maximizing production and available supply. Their intentions have been clear from the start. Hikma is guilty of aiding in the direct infringement when they produce and provide more medication than is needed to satisfy the skinny label market with the knowledge it will be used to infringe, among other things. They boldly announce that they’re actively ramping up production for increased demand, beyond the skinny label market, knowing that it’s currently being sold in an infringing manner. They also know that PBMs are inducing and encouraging infringement on the CVD indication as evidenced by immediate switching of V to higher tiers on many formularies and the actions of GoodRx, InsideRx, United Health, state payers and other PBM’s. They also know how much GL has taken from Amarin and they want a big piece of that infringement pie. I think there’s precedence and sufficient evidence. It doesn’t guarantee the courts will hold Hikma accountable for it or side with Amarin but the case can be made based on Global Tech, GSK and other cases All IMO. I hope lawyers will opine on the relevance of Global-Tech v. SEB.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
