Replies to post #137052 on Biotech Values

[iwfal]

MNTA -

Thus, the trial court refused injunctive relief in order to promote competition with a patent holder that is practicing the patent. What happened to a patent holder having the right to exclusively practice? How can an infringer competing (implicitly degrading the pricing of the product) with the practicing patent holder ever pay a royalty that will be sufficient to remedy the damage suffered?

As I noted in an earlier post I have seen at least one instance of a settlement/damages where there was no injunction - but there were royalties imposed not only on the infringing product but also on a bunch of other products. Given that there is no way to unscramble the egg this seems reasonable. E.g. I'd take 80% of gross profit on aL (I'd guesstimate that to be about $200M per annum GP) plus 40% of GP on all of WPI's other products (they bring in about $400M/Year of GP) for 10 years. Yeah, MNTA/NVS would only be getting $320M/Yr instead of the ~$460M/Yr that they lost when aL entered the market. But they would be getting it for a lot longer than they could have reasonably expected to keep sole generic status.