It seems that many here are concerned about the allowance of the '889 applications. I finally got around to studying the '889 claims to see what the fuss is all about. My prediction is that AMRN will essentially get all if not most of the claims allowed.
The PTO already allowed this patent with notification of "reason for allowance" on 6/28, so the question really is which claims are allowed. Because this application only has one independent claim (claim 1), by issuing reason for allowance, the PTO basically already indicated that claim 1 is allowed without significant change. (One can also deduce this from prior non-final rejections, otherwise it would have been an outright rejection.) Claim 1 of course is the backbone of this application, the rest of the claims 2-13 are dependent claims which re-enforce claim 1 with specific ranges, patient populations, etc.
I don't see any strong reasons for PTO to reject any of the independent claims, as the key dependent claims are all based on ANCHOR results - which we all know were surprising relative to the vast amount of EPA prior arts (and as I accurately predicted in prior posts months ago, the ANCHOR results have been the basis of PTO allowance for all recent Vascepa patents). Claims 2-5 and 11-13 certainly will pass. Claims 6-10 are ANCHOR claims which may be revised slightly, but I am quite sure will not be rejected and will stay essentially in tact.
Perhaps it's you who is the moron. You just don't know it by a long shot.
If you bother to read my post carefully, I already concluded months ago that AMRN will get all the key patents because of the surprising ANCHOR and MARINE results (while everyone had doubt and kept saying they won't because fish oils and EPA have been around for decades). So there is no reason for me to read every AMRN patents when I knew it's in the bag. It's only one key piece of the whole AMRN puzzle anyway, as I said many times prior.
You have no capacity to understand what I said in this post and prior posts, therefore you assumed wrong.
so now who is the moron?
This is pure conjecture, but I'm suspicious that the FDA would like to see 889 & family “allowed” before granting NCE. I don’t believe it’s a requirement for NCE but since 889 specifically includes LDL-C neutrality characteristics, I see it as further differentiating “air cover” for the FDA should they get challenged on the decision.
I went back and did a more thorough research on '889 application. I realized that my original post and comments were based on the original claims in the '889 applications and therefore a bit outdated.
AMRN went back and amended many more claims to '889 applications, and total claims went to 37 from 13 originally. Several back and forth claim revisions after non-final and final rejections and Office Actions, probably to resolve the double patenting issues. As a necessary condition for PTO allowance of '889, AMRN had to file terminal disclaimers involving 11 other patent applications due to double patenting (same claims)
It appears that PTO allowed 19 claims in the latest version vs 13 original claims filed.
Two corrections are needed in my prior post:
first paragraph should say "AMRN will essentially get most if not all the claims allowed".
Last paragraph should say "I don't see any strong reasons for PTO to reject any of the dependent claims"
when amrn does not get nce entered into the orange book the stock price gets crushed. when the stock price gets crushed your wife sees that you lost all of the money. when you lose all of your money your wife cuts you off and you get blue balls. this is why management dumped millions of dollars of stock. approval means nothing without nce and they already knew no nce.
You sound like a man with plenty of experiences with blue balls.
Unlike you, I didn't invest in AMRN because of a single event. It's the huge demand for their product, proven and untapped market sizes, IP and exclusive position, and management credibility, and lastly I also think a pricey buyout is inevitable. It's just me and my business experiences and intuition.