JAMAICA’S Supreme Court, although dismissing claims from local distributors Lasco and Medimpex for post-injunction period losses, yesterday initiated an extended process of estimating their total damages from the Pfizer patent dispute.

Supreme Court judge Justice Viviene Harris made her findings based on evidence produced by the parties to the dispute involving Lasco, Medimex and pharmaceutical giant Pfizer, in a 120-page report made available to their attorneys.

The report stated that, based on the findings, the justice believes that the parties will be able to resolve the outstanding issues and a draft order presented to the court on or before November 24 to complete the process.

“What remains is for a recalculation of the final damages that are to be done in Jamaican currency, and is to be agreed by counsel for the parties and their respective experts,” Justice Harris said.

“A draft order of the award is to be presented to the court on or before the 24th of November, 2017. Counsel for the parties and the experts may make further representation to the court if they require clarification on any aspect of the findings before the final order is made,” she said.

In the meantime, the Supreme Court justice awarded Medimpex US$77,075 for disposal of stock at a rate of exchange of US$69.06 to J$$1, which amounts to J$5,322,799.50. Lasco was awarded J$155,738.90 for disposal of stock.

Interest on the final figure for the awards was set at 8.23 per cent per annum, as agreed, from March 29, 2005 to November 3, 2017. Costs to Lasco and Medimpex are to be agreed and taxed.

However, in terms of the losses suffered by both local companies from 2012, when the injunction which prevented them from selling their generic versions of Pfizer’s hypertension drug Norvasc began, the judge said she was not impressed.

“Regrettably, I think not. I am of the view that the losses that Medimpex and Lasco have ascribed to the injunction in the post-injunction period have not been proven on a balance of probabilities, ‘with any degree of certainty’,” she stated.

“I say so because I find that their cases were premised on certain errors of principles and facts, most, if not all of which were overstated,” she added.

She gave as examples market size; market shares; the market for the base ingredient for the three drugs, amlodipine; unit prices; volume of sales; and “very little if any allowance being made of other players in the market during the period of the injunction; and the time the local companies said the market would have plateaued.