Medical Research Collaborative, LLC

@MedResCol

A representation of expertise from various fields of scientific endeavor, offering a comprehensive analysis of companies in the healthcare sector.

Vrijeme pridruživanja: lipanj 2019.

Tweetovi

Blokirali ste korisnika/cu @MedResCol

Jeste li sigurni da želite vidjeti te tweetove? Time nećete deblokirati korisnika/cu @MedResCol

  1. Prikvačeni tweet

    MRC's thesis, "AMRN: Market Headwinds and Inherent Weakness of the Vascepa IP" is now publicly accessible both on our website (free purchase): and SCRIBD:

    Poništi
  2. Poništi
  3. during this time, the XBI, IBB, and SPX have gained approximately 5.5%, 4.3%, and 4.4%, respectively. The "MRC Fund" is >25% weighted short-AMRN, with a basis of $21.44. A further ~5% is leveraged in June expiry put options, for an approximate 30% total weighting.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  4. Because we're expecting to crash from this point forward, netting outsized returns for the "MRC Fund," it seems like a good point to update how this has been tracking. As of today, The MRC Fund is currently up 19.70% from the date we began publicly disseminating our book;

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  5. The notes continue to be rubbish. Now they are attempting to relay “reads” on the Defense (of course in a bullish manner), and hoping the fewer attorneys vs at beginning of trial means a favorable settlement looming. When loses, don’t forget to re-read these.

    Poništi
  6. Alpha exists in bio/pharma investing where you can grasp minutiae beyond the average expert in the field.

    Poništi
  7. If ANDA labels are not found to induce infringement of the “12-weeks” limitation, OR the “Other Health Benefits” claims, the case is dead and ruled in favor of DRL/Hikma. And that’s very likely to happen. You should consider our latest analysis:

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  8. already found this to be true (see below). The only reason the patents were allowed by the examiner was due to secondary considerations, not the content of claim 1 of the ‘929 patent.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  9. and what is left are or are not then found infringed (direct or induced). Claim 16 of the ‘728 patent was disclosed in the batch analyses of Epadel manufactured pre-2008 (99.8% pure). That’s an easy delete. What about claim 1 of the ‘929 patent? Clearly obvious. The examiner

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  10. It’s a rudimentary matter to show that because claim 16 of the ‘728 patent and claim 1 of the ‘929 are invalid as obvious, that therefore there can be no induced infringement of these claims. And the order in Hatch-Wax trials goes this way: all claims found invalid are stricken,

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  11. It is already invalid as obvious. Technically, this is also true of claim 16 of the ‘728 patent. See both patents’ claims asserted at trial below:

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  12. HDGabor is correct that the “Other Health Benefits” claims on LDL-C and apoB are not present in claim@1 of the ‘929 patent. Thus, if there is no inducement of the Other Health Benefits claims, claim 1 of the ‘929 patent, *could* be infringed for other reasons. Unless..

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  13. HDGabor has made some adjustments in his latest overview, and it’s much better now. He also points out an admission by us, which is correct. But, there’s a big problem... Let’s take a look:

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  14. Amarin is not arguing that ANDA labels show intent to induce infringement of the “12-weeks” limitation at all (its clearly obvious), but rather the “without increasing LDL-C” and “to effect a decrease in apoB” mentions in asserted claims. Our analysis above covers this ground.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  15. And here’s an “overview” of inducement charge by “HDGabor.” But he actually only mentions one of Defendants’ (weakest) arguments against inducement, and doesn’t cite the charge correctly at all:

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  16. Here’s a good example of the complexity here. “Ortakoy,” a purported attorney that posts on Ihub, cited a portion of Bayer that actually *substantiates* Defendants’ case for non-inducement, without even realizing he did so:

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  17. This “clever” wording (pic below) means that like the DCVax-L P3, the “IT-MATTERS” trial is unlikely to ever end. They don’t even want you to know the name of the trial:

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  18. Do you know what is one of the more interesting aspects of this case? Expert testimony on inducement is almost completely irrelevant.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  19. MRC's comprehensive analysis on inducement based on trial proceedings to date, including critique of Amarin's Proposed Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law, is now available for sale on our website (below):

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  20. I really do appreciate pumping this thing on pure air. Sudden liquidity, lovely double digit short entries, hopium. Thanks.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi
  21. Added substantially to short between $13.50-$13.80, now average ~$12.20. No more adds; sitting pat.

    Prikaži ovu nit
    Poništi

Čini se da učitavanje traje već neko vrijeme.

Twitter je možda preopterećen ili ima kratkotrajnih poteškoća u radu. Pokušajte ponovno ili potražite dodatne informacije u odjeljku Status Twittera.

    Možda bi vam se svidjelo i ovo:

    ·