tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post2769066565810867025..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Hospira v Genentech Mark 1, the AppealVerónica Rodríguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-53331519477300637112015-02-06T16:57:24.698+00:002015-02-06T16:57:24.698+00:00If the expert had said that bit of the evidence wa...If the expert had said that bit of the evidence was enough, though, wouldn't one expect the judgment either at first instance or on appeal to have said so?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-87269879545686544732015-02-06T16:43:56.757+00:002015-02-06T16:43:56.757+00:00Dear Anon, I dont think that this is quite right -...Dear Anon, I dont think that this is quite right - it is not "on a different basis to that advanced by any of the experts", it is "on the basis of a different part of the expert evidence than the bit that he did not accept". I do find the logic of this a little tricky to follow when having little time to digest the decision, but I think the substance of it is covered at [38] of the appeal decision:<br /><br />Hospira’s case throughout was that 8 + 6 q3w was obvious. It adduced the evidence of Dr Earhart to support that case, but success or failure of its case did not depend on every part of or step in his evidence being accepted, and Genentech cannot have supposed that this was so. Moreover, the way in which Genentech met Hospira’s case based on Dr Earhart’s evidence was to attack it at every step of the way. It is not therefore surprising that the arguments did not focus precisely on what the result would be if the judge did not accept the totality of the evidence. The judge was bound to consider how much of the evidence he could accept in the light of the cross-examination of Dr Earhart and the evidence of Professor Boddy (Genentech’s expert), to take stock of it, and to decide whether on the basis of the evidence which he accepted the claimed regimen was or was not obvious. I do not think that Genentech can validly complain about the course of the trial or suggest that the judge’s conclusions were not procedurally open to him. The question is whether the evidence did in fact support the conclusions which he reached. Darren Smythhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/04252776942038752516noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-78349861569619612612015-02-06T16:11:11.119+00:002015-02-06T16:11:11.119+00:00"He pointed to a number of points in the reco..."He pointed to a number of points in the record that supported the judge's conclusion that the 6 mg maintenance dose was obvious as it would still be expected to fall within the therapeutic window." <br /><br />It does seem surprising, though, that the judge felt comfortable in reaching a conclusion that 6 mg/kg was obvious based on those points in the record when Hospira's expert had not indicated those points led him to think 6mg/kg was obvious.<br /><br />I'm struggling to think of another case where a judge has found a patent obvious on a different basis to that advanced by any of the experts. Anyone?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com