The battle continues. We previously wrote about the Federal Circuit’s decision in the case (GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva) and how that case may offer Amarin another chance to bar generics from the market for Vascepa®. Sure enough, on November 30, Amarin filed suit against Hikma asserting three patents covering use of EPA to treat cardiovascular events. What are the takeaways from this suit?
Read MoreHikma and Dr. Reddy’s have filed their appellate brief defending Judge Du’s decision invalidating the Marine patents. What does it say?
Read MoreWe have received several follow-up questions, both online and offline, regarding some of our earlier posts – especially on the topics of Kurabayashi and prospective settlement. This post will attempt to collect further thoughts on Kurabayashi. This post gets deeper into the weeds than most of our earlier posts, but it is in response to thoughtful questions and comments that investors clearly looking for areas of weakness in the district court’s opinion. We will follow up shortly on another post discussing dynamics of a potential settlement.
Read MoreThe post mortem of the district court’s decision invalidating Amarin’s ($AMRN) Marine patents continues. We received questions regarding a finding of fact related to the prior art reference, Kurabayashi. The Honorable Miranda M. Du from the District of Nevada found that Kurabayashi was not considered during prosecution of the patents and that Kurabayashi suggested that pure EPA would reduce Apo-B. Are these findings accurate? If not, are they a basis to reverse Judge Du’s decision on appeal?
Read MoreIn the wake of the Nevada district court’s opinion on March 30, which invalidated Amarin’s patents for the Marine indication, we have received questions regarding whether the court committed a procedural error that may justify a reversal on appeal. I mentioned this issue in a parenthetical in our earlier post, but will address this issue in greater depth in this post.
Read More