Replies to post #422802 on Amarin Corp Plc (AMRN)

[marjac]

I wish cbb. But too much time has passed, and too many courts have passed on the opportunity to remedy that problem. Amarin doesn't want to pursue, and even if they did, it is no longer ripe to pursue. The courts wrongfully denied us standing, so we cannot pursue. If we had a Panel like today's Panel, I believe we would have prevailed. It's very frustrating that justice is largely dependent upon who is meting it out.

[north40000]

I do. 1). I have not seen the text of AMRN’s answer/reply to DRL’s motion that the magistrate judge in Trenton ordered be filed by AMRN on March 28. Does anyone have the text of what Amarin said?

2). A brief summary: IMO, AMRN has the potential option of filing a new complaint in Nevada or Trenton(or an amended complaint) asking for relief in the form of restoration of the patents held invalid in Nevada to a state of validity. AMRN would rely on the gist of the “fraud on the court” arguments that we shareholders presented to both the CAFC and S.Ct. IMO, the quoted inequitable conduct/ethics Hikma/DRL used to invalidate the patents would wipe out any question/issue of res judicata or collateral estoppel raised by DRL or HIKMA . The 1940s S.Ct. Hazel-Atlas decision/opinion by Justice Black is controlling authority.

3). All judges today, IMO, appear to have remarked that Hikma’s product label, coupled with a website and/or a PR, actually presented a case/issue of whether Hikma had directly infringed the AMRN patents under 35 U.S.C. 271(a). We need a follow-up, like court-ordered discovery, on that point.

At this point, it would be helpful to know if the antitrust case in N.J. has been, or will be, consolidated with the patent infringement case against Hikma in Delaware. Where will it be consolidated? A 3 judge panel of Circuit Judges normally decides such matters.