Replies to post #371216 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[north40000]

Compare 957 F.3d 1309 (2020)(Newman, dissenting in part):

“….It is improper for the reviewing court to change the text of a reference to enlarge its disclosure by removing explicit limitations, and then apply the new enlarged content as prior art…..”……”It is inappropriate to edit a reference to remove explicit limitations, and then to apply the judicially-enlarged disclosure as prior art…”

Now see the entire table of K vis a vis the “cropped” table of K.

[concapk]

marjac,

Occum's Razor: the simplest truth...

Their were 3 ( three ) judges on the CAFU panel that day .... DYKE/ RENYA and NEWMAN ( the impostor- wolf in sheep's clothing ). We all thought that Newman would look at the facts and prior 9th district rulings on Standing.
Review her statements in the oral arguments. You would have thought, we would be given a written opinion by her on our allowance to be herd and proceed.

OUTCOME : technically in 24 hours ( Friday to Monday ) .... DENIED AND RULE
36 INVOKED again.... Someone very high up is controlling Amarin's outcomes...