Replies to post #338437 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[rafunrafun]

Would they be any more responsible for infringement than say a tv manufacturer unknowingly selling tv's with chips in them that (yet to be proven) violate a competing chip manufacturer's patent?

Their point was that they don't know about the infringed patents. Doesn't this argument collapse if they go read the actual patents?

And what do you mean "yet to be proven"? Reduce-it is patented, so it is proven, WRT to your example.

A better example would be a store selling fake Prada purses for $20 and claiming that they didn't know they were fake.

contrarian view to the consensus of posters here ... SC will not hear Amarin's appeal, Amarin will lose this case with Hikma and the rule 60 appeal will be denied with no comment

These aren't contrarian views, they are the consensus.

SC - There isn't a single serious poster who thinks the chance of getting the case heard is more than 50%. I think the highest I read was 30%.

Rule 60 - Same but the chance is no more than 1%, IMO.

Against Hikma - I think 50/50 at best but against Health Net is much higher.

So you're not really taking the contrarian viewpoint, you're actually going with the consensus.

[Skipperdog11]

"Would they be any more responsible for infringement than say a tv manufacturer unknowingly selling tv's with chips in them that (yet to be proven) violate a competing chip manufacturer's patent?"

May want to look up doctrine of patent exhaustion.

[Number sleven]

Bill, Do you think the Judge will dismiss the Amarin v Hikma suit with prejudice, before seeing a ruling on GSK v Teva? If the judge doesn't dismiss Hikma needs to do some risk/reward calculation. This case might be less about winning then it is fear of loosing. Supreme Court is difficult to handicap. Disagreement in the lower courts, over the application of patent law, have become a problem. We can't know if the court wants to use this opportunity to clarify the issue. I am more hopeful after the requested response from The court. I think the suit filed by Dr. Reddy's is absurd for a variety of reasons.
Just my 2 cents.
Sleven,

[ziploc_1]

When a patient visits a pharmacy with an an Rx for Vascepa and Healthnet tells the phamacist to substitute gV for Vascepa, even though Healthnet is aware from PRIOR AUTHORIZATION that the Rx is for CVD...Healthnet is now guilty of inducing infringement of Amarin's Reduce-it patents.