Replies to post #326587 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[HDGabor]

r-

Who will the jury blame for gV sales exceeding 7% of the market share?

Existence of direct infringement is not a question. It could exist at 1% market share also ... but again: it is not about the sold / dispensed volume of gV but about why the direct infringement exist:
- it is exist because of inducement by Hikma
or
- Hikma does not induce direct infringement, ergo could not be liable for it ... it exists independently* (*for inducement aspect) from Hikma

The existence of gV is not a proof of inducement.

btw: the 7% of the market share is MARINE market share of Vascepa. I could not recognized any claim / sentence (as a fact) in any doc that claims that gV was sold / dispensed for R-IT indication. Maybe 100% of the gV were dispensed for MARINE indication ... the target population is 4+ million (To avoid any doubt: No question, gV for R-IT exists). With other words: Amarin did not claim that gV was / is sold for R-IT but claim that Hikma encourage, market, etc, (induce) dispense for R-IT.

It is not about For what? but about Why? (Because of Hikma's specific action or not)

Best,
G