Zip, I think you are correct. The internet is obvious in Amarin v Hikma. I posted a legal article earlier today that explained the ruling in GSK v Teva delineated the difference between a "skinny label" and a "partial label". It suggested that one of the unpatented indications overlapped the patented indication enough that it could not be successfully be carved out. Due to this, the label instructions tell doctors how to treat patients with the patented indication. This inability to properly separate the indications makes the label partial. If what they are saying is an accurate interpretation of the ruling, I don't see any way Hikma can win. Based on this precedent the Hikma label will be considered partial and not skinny. The partial label will be infringing with no protection from Hatch Waxman.
Do you agree.
Sleven,
Market Data 
Markets 
AI
