Replies to post #349887 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[ralphey]

Perhaps the question is -

IS the problem the intertwining or the mechanism that induces such ?

I would argue that intertwining infringes regardless of the mechanism of induction ....

[ziploc_1]

Nsleven...I agree that the labels in both cases are intertwined, but the Amarin case is more flagrant because the invalidated Marine patent is a patent for a tiny market, whereas the valid R-IT patent, which Hickma and Healthnet have shown their intentions to infringe on, is a patent for a giant market.

[ziploc_1]

Nsleven...Quote from the legal article "the Court found that Dr. McCullough (GSK’s expert) testified that the post-MI LVD was “intertwined with heart failure”...

"Dr. Zusman (Teva’s expert) agreed that a patient with post-MI LVD “would be diagnosed with as suffering from congestive heart failure under the district court’s construction.”

Substitute high triglycerides for 'post MI LVD' and substitute 'liable for an increased incidence of CVD'...and you have an intertwined invalidated Marine patent and a valid Reduce-it patent.

The Hickma label is, a partial label and, as such, is bound to infringe on Amarin's CVD label.

I agree that this is manifestly apparent.