The way things are going in the US courts, it looks like the intent is to keep status co ongoing.
Rule 60 and Rule 24 are going to be equally challenging. A colleague is not going tell the other colleague, you don't know law. This is the primary problem with the appeal. All peas belong to the same pod
The most certain avenue is to figure out a way to fight the Reduce-It patent infringement beyond the inducibility clause.
Courts can wash off hands saying there is no ACTIVE inducement and nothing is being infringed. They have a good shot at winning but all Hikma has to do is sorry and pay a small penalty and continue selling the generic.
The solution is to find a way to hold someone accountable for allowing the drug to be used for CVD use.
Insurance? Yes, they are being sued by Amarin but under what clauses can they hide? How can their willful support of Hikma be objectively identified as infringement? Under which law will this be definitely illegal.
Doctors? They can not be held accountable. But what about the Healthcare systems where they work? Nobody will go after the doctors, since they will stop prescribing the drug altogether.
Pharmacy? Definitely. Pharmacies have an economic incentive to promote generics without regard for patents. They can not claim ignorance to infringement by arguing that current pharmacy state laws encourage patent infringement
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
