Replies to post #422303 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[north40000]

See also #422127 and subsequent replies thereto.

[ziploc_1]

North...From memory... the Board of patent appeals has(or had) a reputation of being very pro patent infringer.

[JRoon71]

counsel for Merck in the Keytruda patent litigation with JHU is the same counsel that Amarin is using in the Amarin v. Hikma matter now on appeal to the CAFC.

Great to know! At least we know they are up to the task

I wonder, like you, why Amarin has not asked for reexamination of its 4 patents in the PTO before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences.

But, do we necessarily know that they have NOT explored this?

[ilovetech]

North4000 -

I wonder, like you, why Amarin has not asked for reexamination of its 4 patents in the PTO before the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. The procedural effect of FRCP Rule 60(d)(3) “at any time” seems equally applicable in both the Federal Courts(Hazel-Atlas case) and BPAI.

Where were you on this option right after members of this board discovered Du's decision was based on a cropped graph? When I repeatedly asked why Amrn wouldn't exercise such an opportunity, "if one exists?" I heard nothing encouraging in response at the time. Just crickets for the last 4 years. It took coming across an article about a rich BP, not a small biotech in the dumps for years, to learn there is a pathway through the USPTO to pursue. If I had that expertise, I would have adapted a Warjac approach in pursuit of that option years ago.