% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Avanir Pharmaceuticals, Inc. Message Board

  • placesontherun37 placesontherun37 Oct 8, 2013 1:23 AM Flag

    4 New docket filings just made on PACER...2 post trial briefs, 2 proposed findings of fact...

    D.I's #429 through #432...will read same and post relevant excerpts...

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

    SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Most Replied Expand all replies
    • Now you know why the Defendants lost all 5 Markman Rulings...

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Thanks, places, both for providing the info and for your expert analysis. As an attorney, I am very impressed with the level of insight and nuance you provide. The fact that you share this on the board gratis is a boon that I don't know that everyone fully appreciates.

      Kudos also to OFP. For a layman, you have tremendous analytic skills and I have benefitted greatly from your discussion in this area as well.

    • 5 Stars and a game changer, IMO!

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

    • Only the Defendants filed briefs are available on PACER yet...their Opening post trial brief and proposed findings of fact...when the plaintiffs' documents become available, will read them and comment on them...for now, just the defendants docs are available...

      Sentiment: Strong Buy

      • 2 Replies to placesontherun37
      • Thanks for the summaries Places.

        In trying to put together an "obviousness" story it seemed that the defendants really had to scrape together elements from many disparate sources. Tying these together was one of their expert's (Poulsen) testimony that one could simply calculate the eventual results based on known pharmacokinetics. Have they continued to put this forward as a significant part of their arguments?

        It seemed to me that AVNR's expert (Sellers) pretty much blew that argument apart but I'm wondering if the defendants are still trying to use it and to what extent. In addition, this argument suffers from the fact that it ignores the clinical response. Even if you could do this calculation (which was shown to have been done incorrectly) there was no expectation from prior art that one would expect a clinical response at the levels he was trying to propose (with dubious case of "patient example #2" as a possible exception).

      • From the introduction of the Defendants opening post-trial brief...

        "...The subject matter of the asserted claims of the '282 and '484 patents is obvious. Smith's prior art, including his previous disclosure in the '248 patent that the co-administration of DM and Q successfully treated PBA with an average DM blood concentration of 43-55 ng/ml, explicitly teaches every aspect of that subject matter EXCEPT (emphasis added) for the claimed lower dose ranges for Q."

        Well, Virginia, its these VERY lower doses of Q that float the boat, here...i.e., the teaching away doctrine applies specifically to this fact pattern...

        Weak opening gambit, IMHO, along with only 7 cited cases in the entire brief...

        Sentiment: Strong Buy

16.960.00(0.00%)Jan 12 3:59 PMEST