Replies to post #359366 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[alm2]

Marjac
I agree that Du could have righted the position when Epadi brought Rule 24 / 60 before her

Forgive me but you I think misunderstand me and the point I was getting at

She (rightly or wrongly) was of the view that Posa did not consider K

Why did she reach that view ??

did the generics either through lawyers or expert persuade her that K was not considered by PoSa ?


She was not saying - “Posa considered K but reached an incorrect conclusion as to K and because I have considered K and I reach a completely different view “ I rule patents obvious

She was saying “posa did not consider K but I have considered K - if Posa had considered K he would - as I now do have considered patents obvious and not granted patents - I therefore rule patents invalid as obvious “

The Posa should have considered K - it was available at the time for consideration

She was saying he didn’t consider it

If she was saying Posa DID consider K she would have to ruled in effect that POSA got his consideration of K wrong

So it is important to understand why she reached the View K was not considered by PoSA

Did generics deliberately lead her to this conclusion that K not considered by POSA

Was doing so part of their plan ?

I say she was doing her job properly in this context -

If POSA did not consider k in granting patents she is right to say POSA should have .... and she said POSA did not consider K


But it was referenced by Posa. - somehow she was persuaded it was not considered

Is posa reference enough to demonstrate it was “considered” by POSa

Alm

[alm2]

Marjac
As to your second paragraph

She stated POSa did not consider K ( but ? Is was she right or wrong on that point and why did she reach that conclusion - how was she persuaded of this ?

We know K was extant at the time POSA was considering patent application

Even if POSA was unaware of K because it was extant (as I understand patent law) the POSA should have taken it into account

Du would thus be right to both consider K and to say if POSA had considered K he would have taken it into account in the patent process

She obviously believed that if POSa had considered K he would not have granted patents

So Du did take it into account and ruled patents obvious

- because she was led to the wrong interpretation of K (by fraud by generics/ by mistake)

If she had been led to the correct view of K she would not have found patents obvious


Will it be the right approach to suggest Du was reaching the views she did because she had her own activist position as to patents ??

Or is it better to say well she was doing her job .... she thought K not considered by POSA ( identifying how she reached this viewi if one can eg lawyer for generics told her that K not considered by POSA )and she did the right thing thereafter in considering K - she was correct to consider K

But telling the FC that she had been misled by generics as to what K meant and ruled patents obvious because of this

Alm

Alm