It will be hard for Hikma to get around not including the CV limitation on its label. Amarin has screenshots of that and those were attached as Exhibits. That was just blatant. It is akin to having your hand in the cookie jar and being caught before your hand is removed. That is clear as day.....when Hikma launched there was no CV limitation on its label. Amarin has good facts and the case is in front of a jury.
Many people are getting caught up in the weeds here. The question to be asked is what will the general counsel of Hikma be communicating to the CEO of Hikma post GSK v. Teva about the risks of losing such a trial. It is about the risk of loss and what does that look like. Anything can happen with a jury trial but which entity in this case has more to lose. As was pointed out in the GSK trial, when there is infringement, the brand company can sue just one generic and that generic is responsible for all the lost profits form infringement from all the other generics too. Read that again: Hikma would be responsible for the lost profits emanating from all the other generics who have infringed as well.
Again the general counsel and lawyers at Hikma are having these conversations with the CEO. That's their job.
btw: Judge Newman is very smart. She knows the generics having been playing back door grab scripts via these skinny labels. So what did she do: she rewrote her opinion saying this is not a skinny label case to appease all those who weighed in about this case. Well duh in a skinny label there is no infringement but guess what there was infringement so not a true skinny label case. LOL. She is truly smart. And the beauty of it is: no en banc hearing for Teva. This is now a precedent setting case. For those who said they saw this coming......they did not. Nobody was discussing this case in the earlier parts of 2020. It arrived just in time after being heard in 2019. Thank God for Judge Newman.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
AI
