1. “Whether the district court legally erred in its framework for evaluating objective indicia of non-obviousness, by (a) concluding that the claims were obvious before even analyzing the compelling objective indicia evidence, infusing its entire analysis with hindsight; and (b) improperly requiring Amarin to prove every objective indicia or have it count against non-obviousness.”
2. “Whether the district court improperly applied a hindsight-based analysis on motivation to combine and reasonable expectation of success, causing it to ignore significant evidence cutting against Defendants’ case and shift the burden to Amarin to prove non-obviousness in an erroneous attempt to fill the evidentiary gaps in Defendants’ proof.”
“AFFIRMED. See Fed. Cir. R. 36.”
