InvestorsHub Logo

louieblouie

06/03/21 2:06 PM

#342049 RE: oneragman #342048

Infringement still happening on reduce-it indication - not Marine. IMHO and I am no atty.

ralphey

06/03/21 2:08 PM

#342051 RE: oneragman #342048

Yes that makes total sense oneragman thanks for outlining it ...

MateoPaisa

06/03/21 2:30 PM

#342059 RE: oneragman #342048

sts66

06/03/21 3:06 PM

#342069 RE: oneragman #342048

That sounds reasonable, but the case is not over while there is an appeal pending at the SC - where does the law say "if the FC confirms a DC decision that a patent is invalid that's the end of the story"?

alm2

06/03/21 5:23 PM

#342079 RE: oneragman #342048

Oneragman
Right in relation to the sale by Hikma as GV -but only for non CV application - the Delaware case is all about H infringement-by selling to CV usage for which patents remain entirely valid - so you have to split your analysis accordingly
Alm

DAR53

06/04/21 6:15 AM

#342109 RE: oneragman #342048

I'm not an attorney, but would not Hikma be liable if in fact they would be found guilty of fraud on the courts by their lies and the cropped table which then allowed DU to take the wrong path on obviousness?