Part I/II of MRC’s Critique of Amarin’s Assertions of Inducement and Non-Obviousness in its Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law
Critique of Amarin’s primary Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, contained within ECF No. 331 of AMARIN PHARMA, INC., et al., Plaintiff(s), v. HIKMA PHARMACEUTICALS USA, INC., et al., Defendant(s); Case No.: 2:16-cv-02525-MMD-NJK, by Medical Research Collaborative, LLC (“MRC,” “we,” “us,” etc.). We find that not only are the 10 asserted claims at trial both explicitly and inherently obvious, but more importantly, that Amarin cannot demonstrate “by a preponderance of evidence” that Defendants’ ANDA labels “show intent to encourage” clinicians to infringe upon any of the asserted claims, and that in order for Judge Du to issue this ruling, it would require her to defy clear precedent in multiple Federal Circuit rulings (and/or inconceivably misunderstand their most apparent interpretation), as well as usurp well-established rules contained in the Code of Federal Regulations (“C.F.R.”)—in short, go rogue. Nothing revealed in the trial proceedings to date (as of 01-23-2020), or in Amarin’s pretrial documents, has altered our point of view. Thus, the odds of Amarin winning the litigation remain paltry (< 15%). In this document, our analysis shows why.
Part I (herein) focuses on inducement; Part II will focus on "clear and convincing evidence" of obviousness.
TOTAL LENGTH: 34 pages; 15,424 words
*please note that this document is protected by copyright infringement ("piracy") laws, and the dissemination of this document on any public forum, without MRC's express written permission, is strictly prohibited by law.
Why it is Highly Improbable the Court Will Find Defendants' ANDA Labels as Inducing Infringement (Amarin v. DRL/Hikma)
- Product Code: Amarin v. DRL/Hikma on Inducement
- Availability: In Stock