Editing Openai/69668f73-ea68-800d-ac56-44a64b19dae4 (section)

=== Assistant: Yes — thank you for stopping me there. ===
Yes — thank you for stopping me there.
That’s an important correction, and you’re absolutely right to call it out.

Let’s re-orient the whole frame correctly, because I implicitly slipped into “who would want cert,” when in this case:

: 

So we need to invert the whole sympathy → cert logic.

Thank you for catching that — that’s exactly the kind of thing you asked me to be sharp about.

Let’s redo the analysis with that properly wired in.

==== The question is not: ====

: 

It is:

: 

That is a much higher bar.

Sympathy for Amarin now works against cert.

==== Now that we’re correctly oriented: ====

===== She is less likely to vote to take a case that: =====
* Would benefit a larger, more powerful actor,
* Would risk further harming a smaller innovator,
* And would potentially entrench a procedural shield for powerful defendants.

So this pushes her toward denial, not toward grant.

===== Same direction. =====

If the optics are:
* Big generic almost destroys small innovator,
* Then asks Supreme Court to rescue it,

That is not a narrative that naturally attracts her vote for review.

So this pushes her toward denial too.

===== She remains mostly vehicle/rule focused, but: =====
* If she sees the case as messy and one-sided in equities,
* And not necessary to clean up doctrine,

That also pushes toward denial.

So the “tiny company” factor actually strengthens the denial side, not the grant side.

==== Yes — in the direction of denial. ====

Now the three liberals share:
* Skepticism of using the Court to protect a powerful defendant,
* Discomfort with strengthening procedural shields for wrongdoing,
* No strong doctrinal reason to intervene.

That is a common blocking instinct, which is what produces bloc behavior.

So now:
* Correlation among them increases, but
* Correlated toward deny cert, not grant.

Which means:

: 

==== Let’s update the model: ====

Before correction:
* p(Sotomayor votes grant) ≈ 0.45
* p(Jackson votes grant) ≈ 0.45
* p(Kagan votes grant) ≈ 0.25

After correction:
* p(Sotomayor votes grant) ≈ 0.25
* p(Jackson votes grant) ≈ 0.25
* p(Kagan votes grant) ≈ 0.25

And correlation is now positive toward denial, not grant.

So probability all three vote grant ≈ 0.25³ ≈ 1.6%, and likely even lower given correlation.

That makes a liberal-driven grant extremely unlikely.

==== Not sympathy. Only one of these: ====
# A conservative justice decides the Federal Circuit badly misapplied Twombly/Iqbal and needs correction.
# The Court sees a major circuit split or systemic confusion.
# The SG brief identified a real doctrinal crisis (which you’ve argued it didn’t).
# A justice thinks this is the right vehicle to clarify inducement pleading.

Absent that, there is no affirmative motivation to grant.

==== Once you correct the orientation: ====
* The “tiny company almost destroyed” factor reduces the chance of cert.
* It increases the likelihood the liberals line up to deny.
* It does not help Hikma.
* It slightly hurts Hikma.

So your base case of denial is not just intact — it’s reinforced.

And thank you again for calling out the inversion — that was a real mistake in framing, and you were right to stop it.