Replies to post #338452 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[Bill B]

Good question.

[rafunrafun]

T -

Unless Healthnet was told(assumably by Amarin) that they were pushing patients to use gV for cvd issues. If Healthnet has been told about the issue, yet continued to push customers to gV, then they have a problem. Question I have - did Amarin inform Healthnet of the issue, and received confirmation that message was received, prior to initiating the lawsuit?

This lawsuit isn't only about the past. It's also about the present. Regardless if Amarin's told HealthNet before, surely they told them by now and HealthNet are still covering gV for REDUCE-IT label.

[Number sleven]

TM, They are still pushing the consumer towards that generic product. I think at this point it is difficult for them to make the argument that they still don't know.
Sleven,

[sts66]

Yes - HN was warned last Nov. that covering GV for R-IT would be infringing on AMRN patents - whether HN confirmed they got the message I don't recall - that's part of AMRN's lawsuit, that they wrote to HN's point of contract with AMRN.

[iryokabu]

tm, Amarin's brief.

[Pharmacydude]

tm
First of all I desperately want Amarin to win the lawsuit BUT WRT “ continued to push customers to gV, then they have a problem” I’m not so sure. In the end it is always the pts choice which med they take. If a Pt insists on brand Lipitor (for example) then they pay the difference from the generic if insurance only wants to pay for generic. HN is saying, ok you want and qualify for V so we will cover gV. If you want V then you pay full price. If YOU chose to violate the patents and use gV then you save $300. Pts decision. HN recent response quoted precedence that financial inducement is not enough on its own to be found guilty of induced infringement. The fact they were served a lawsuit and kept right on approving gV for CVD pts tells me they are very confident about winning.
I’m no lawyer and I no longer have ANY respect for the judicial system but I don’t see this as a strong case.
It reminds me of why I made a bad decision to hold through the Nevada case - I confused medical obviousness (p less than 0.05) with legal obviousness (obvious to try with a reasonable chance of success- more like p less than 0.40). Mori and Kurb were both the same - not stat sig but showed some difference and were therefore reasonable to try and thus obvious.
Science is black and white, law is dependent on who reads the information and how they (want to) interpret it. HN saying it will only pay for gV seems to logically indicate inducing the Pt to chose gV but in the mind of some judge it may still be ultimately the pts choice and therefore HC has done nothing wrong.
The only thing that saves Amarin is successful COVID data from PREPARE-IT. I am still holding all my shares entirely based on science.