Slacker,
You mean the jury probably was not allowed to base their decision on present sales $$? Maybe - don't have any way of knowing that.
But I read in one of the litigation websites articles that a jury, when it finds infringement, is often asked to construct projected past and future sales estimates as part of their deliberations on how much is "reasonable" compensation to the successful plaintiff. How can what is "reasonable" be assessed in a vacuum?
Actually, thinking it through a bunch of times I wonder if the jury's royalty decision is expected to serve as a baseline "model" for the judge to use in deciding the future compensation.
Can someone on this board comment knowledgeably on this concept? Would the jury's 15%/20% royalty model be the basis for what I have heard referred to as "treble damages"? Anyone have concrete experience or examples of how that all works?
We may not have anyone on the board that can read out the short term endgame here. But the longer term does include the presumption that Insmed can generate enough cash to finance new indication approvals - which is linked to the pps - which will be affected by the royalty load from this suit. If Wilken came down with a 50% royalty rate as punitive damages, I don't think that would be "non-event". It might add more drag to the short term pps and inhibit Insmed's ability to raise cash for those vital clinical trials on reasonable terms.
At this moment, all Insmed has against it is a $7.5 million lump sum payment plus about $150,000 in past sales royalties -and all subject to appeal.
So I'm curious if anyone has insight from actual examples on how/when "willful" infringement damages are determined by judges, or at least some real world examples.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
