Replies to post #334388 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[rafunrafun]

If it gets that far, we should have a good chance, because we win on the statistics argument.

I think she'll do everything possible to prevent it from getting there. Marjac did a great job trying to prevent that.

[Tal10]

You have hit the nail on the head. Amarin couldn't fight what they didn't see coming. They were blindsided with Du's complete misinterpretation of both studies, which were based on conclusions Judge Du had no right to make without first seeking answers to imperative questions. Amarin attornies likely could have picked up on her complete lack of understanding, but they didn't. Just as Amarin counsel should have realized in the first 5 minutes of the appeal that they were getting nowhere in their arguments, and a new course of direction was needed.

[alm2]

Hindukush/ marjac

Du to Amarin - is this true guys ? -

(So Du must be asking this question after allowing Rule24 motion - if she does not allow Rule24 she won’t be asking anyone’s further view on anything

She won’t be asking Amarin about Rule 24 -will she ??? On what basis ... ? And if she did there is only one answer Amarin can give - we agree party bringing proceedings has standing ....

So moving to a question Amarin may be asked in Rule 60 proceedings

Amarin - yes it is true

du-Why did you not point it out in the trial???

HK

I struggle with this as a relevant question in these Rule 60
Proceedings

This is a real danger - we don’t want to get side tracked in to why Amarin did or did not do something in the trial

The focus is now on what did happen in the trial - not what didn’t happen (because of Amarin failing to take a particular route )

So what happened in the trial -( we know ....) mistake / fraud on the court - as to K and Mori -but for such there would not have been a ruling of obviousness

So the only question if Du wishes to pose it of Amarin is -do you agree with the asserted matters by plaintiff in these rule 60 proceedings

Amarin can only give one answer -yes

(I appreciate that the posing of the question nor the answer will be perhaps as simplistic as I have set out but in short form this is the story

Du must not be allowed to switch this case to one of - well Amarin didn’t take up these matters so I am ruling against you - the focus must not be on Amarin and it’s trial failures

That is not the issue here - it’s not whether or not Amarin messed up (we know they did) It’s whether there is mistake and fraud and thus this decision has to be set aside
Alm