Just when you think the Amarin saga to keep out generic competition is over, something else happens. In the latest development, the Federal Circuit issued a precedential decision in an unrelated case (GlaxoSmithKline v. Teva) that suggests that a generic could potentially be liable for inducing infringement of a patented indication, even though that indication has been carved out of the generic’s label. Will this decision benefit Amarin?

Hikma and Dr. Reddy’s have filed their appellate brief defending Judge Du’s decision invalidating the Marine patents. What does it say?

In Amarin’s pending Hatch-Waxman Vascepa case against Dr. Reddy’s and Hikma, we see at least obstacles to settlement at this time before resolution of the appeal: money, entry and invalidity.

Amarin ($AMRN) has lost its trial against Hikma and Dr. Reddy’s. On March 30, the Honorable Miranda M. Du from the United States District Court for the District of Nevada issued a bench order following a multi-day trial in January. Judge Du held that although Amarin had proven that the generics would induce infringement of the asserted patents by selling their prospective generic versions of Vacepa®, all of the patents were nonetheless invalid as obvious. As a result, Judge Du denied an injunction against Hikma and Dr. Reddy’s for selling generic versions of Vascepa®. What happens now?

Amarin Pharmaceuticals ($AMRN) will be going to trial soon to protect Vascepa® against generic competition.  Amarin has asserted 15 claims from six patents against ANDAs filed by Hikma, Dr. Reddy’s and Teva.  What are the issues to be addressed at trial?