1 / 7

Innovator Rights & Health Insurance Damages: Insights from Fordham IP Conference Japan 2018

Explore the legal intricacies of patent infringement damages in relation to lowered National Health Insurance prices at Fordham IP Conference. Dive into the case study of CHUGAI vs. Columbia Univ., shedding light on lost profits and price reductions due to generics. Understand share loss intricacies under patent law and the impact on innovators' pricing strategies. Delve into the complexities of negligence presumption and reduction clauses in patent infringement cases.

pagej
Download Presentation

Innovator Rights & Health Insurance Damages: Insights from Fordham IP Conference Japan 2018

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Damages Relating To Lowered National Health Insurance Price “Can an innovator demand to the generics the damages caused by the lowered National Health Insurance price which had been reduced due to the appearance of the infringing generics?  Fordham IP Conference Life Science Panel April5-6, 2018 Eiji Katayama Abe, Ikubo & Katayama

  2. Facts 【Innovator】 【Generics】 Columbia Univ. CHUGAI（X) 【Patent】 • Process Patent ’301 • Co-owned by Columbia and CHUGAI; CHUGAI is an exclusive licensee of Columbia’s share. • Found infringed based upon DOE by separate suit. Y１ Y2 Y3

  3. Damages Claimed • Lost Profit due to share loss(§102 para 1, Jap. Pat. Code) 【Y’s sales units】 ×【X’s profit per unit】-【Units X could not have sold】 • Damagecaused by the price down due to lowered National Health Insurance Price (General Tort provision §709 of Civil Code) 【Y’s original price】 -【Y’s reduced price due to lowered NHI price】

  4. Issues Share Loss • Competing other products not covered by Patent in the market (Whether X could not have sold all? If not, how much?) Other Products Ct’s Conclusion 42% ⇒ reduce by 10% Patented NotPatented 42% Infringing products

  5. Price Down • Japanese National Health Insurance Pricing; - When generic’s listed, innovator’s price is reduced. • Court held the difference is a legitimate legal interest to be protected.

  6. Other Issues • Whether presumption clause of negligence (§103) applied to DOE case? (Y argued that Y obtained expert’s opinions of non-infringement from EU patent attorney and Japanese Benrishi, and this wouldbreak presumption.) ⇒Court held “no”. The presumption of negligence still work on DOE case. • Whether reduction clause when no gross negligence (§102, para 4) be applied? ⇒ Court held “no.”

  7. Thank you! Eiji Katayama Abe, Ikubo & Katayama katayama@aiklaw.co.jp

More Related