From the 3rd edition of LECG's UK Newsletter comes this little insight into the deployment of a financial consultancy in intellectual property litigation, in Les Laboratoires Servier and another v Apotex Inc and others [2008] EWHC 2347 (Ch), heard on 9 October by Mr Justice Norris and briefly summarised here and here: This looks like a great victory for LECG, but it should not be forgotten that the calculation of damages for failure to be allowed into a market still remains a largely conjectural exercise. As the judge said at para. 60:"... Our UK case highlights include being instructed by Taylor Wessing to calculate Apotex UK Limited’s damages as a result of an injunction they had observed. For a period of 11 months, Apotex was injuncted from selling a particular generic drug, because of claims of patent infringement brought against it by Servier, which manufactured the branded version of the drug. Apotex had always contended that the patent was invalid, and when this assertion was subsequently validated by the Court, Servier was liable for the damages suffered by Apotex as a result of the injunction.
Apotex won a substantial damages figure of £17.5M. ... The amount of interest awarded was also a matter of contention, and in a separate hearing, Norris J awarded a further £2.1M in interest. In respect of the interest calculation, Norris J deemed the Apotex parties ‘substantially right’.
Of particular interest in this case were the market dynamics, which were specific to the industry in question. The interaction between ‘branded’ drugs, ‘generic’ drugs and ‘authorised generic’ drugs (sold as generics under authorisation of the original patent holder) played a part in the formation of the ‘but-for’ scenarios. The market dynamics were important to every aspect of the case, but in particular (i) the role of potential market entrants, in the (hypothetical) absence of the injunction and (ii) the extent to which the injunction affected Apotex in perpetuity".
"Recognising the imprecision inherent in the exercise but the precision of some of the assumptions used I have then stood back and compared that sum with the £74 million Servier earned during the period of the injunction to which it was found ultimately not entitled, to the £11 million which it paid to AG2 to keep it out of the market, and to the $20 million paid to G4; and I have asked myself whether in the round this sum overcompensates Apotex for the loss that it has suffered, reminding myself that the jurisdiction is compensatory not punitive. The range of figures presented for my consideration went from £400,000 (Servier) to £27 million (Apotex). I am satisfied that my figure is broadly right, though I would propose to round it down to £17.5 million to underline the fact that one can only do broad justice where there are so many significant variables. £17.5 million is accordingly the figure which I award as compensation on the enquiry".
