Avoided staff training costs
Avoided staff training costs
Mr Brandreth in his closing submissions contended that the court should include a figure of £200,000 for the avoided costs of training staff to ensure that MSD remained compliant with the 1970 Agreement. He derived that figure from the 2016 evidence of Ms Ambrose. There was no evidence on this from Mr Wynn or Dr Stec; this was therefore another attempt to increase the economic benefits figure at the end of the trial on the basis of a point not ever previously considered by the experts. It was far too late to do so, and I do not therefore consider it appropriate to include any figure for these costs.
- Heading
- Section 1
- Witnesses
- MSD’s witnesses of fact
- Expert evidence
- Factual and procedural history
- The Merck companies
- The 1955 and 1970 Agreements
- The present proceedings and previous judgments
- Relevant findings of breach and infringement
- Issues
- Relevant law
- The relevant counterfactual
- General approach to uncertainties in the evidence
- Appropriateness of licence fee damages in the present case
- The assessment of licence fee damages: overview
- Comparables approach
- The criticisms of Mr Wynn’s analysis
- Mr Wynn’s cross-examination
- Merck’s closing submissions
- Economic benefits approach
- General approach
- Avoided costs of email address migration
- Avoided website costs
- Avoided social media costs
- Web traffic gain
- Avoided marketing costs
- Avoided staff training costs
- Unquantifiable benefits
- Inflation adjustment
- Discount rate
- Conclusions
![HC-2013-000089 - [2025] EWHC 2376 (Ch)](https://backend.juristeca.com/files/emisores/logo_O3rEzCI.png)