可以继续谈 deal
MNC 获得商业权不应以我方承担 uncapped third-party patent exposure 为代价。风险应被写成已披露的 known IP encumbrance，并通过 royalty stacking、offset、cap 和 settlement consent 控制。
Internal strategic working draft · not legal advice
把 VSV-G / Cocal-G 354 位点风险 变成可谈判的 deal term
当前目标不是证明“没有风险”。
我们要把已知第三方专利族拆成三件事：
地域。专利状态。封顶机制。
避免它变成对 MNC 的无限 IP 赔偿责任。
Legal validity
Commercial leverage
挑战空间
许可谈判
诉讼高压
EP 70%
US narrower
CN out
Executive summary
一屏结论
Base exposure
1%-4%
covered territory net sales + small reserve
Highest risk
Europe
EP 70% homolog language has strongest leverage
Red line
No uncapped indemnity
no global-sales pass-through or MNC willfulness
Best anchor
Juno / Novartis
license economics over full damages reimbursement
Current strategic answer
风险真实存在，但可以边界化、定价和谈判。应把目标专利族写成已披露的 Known Third-Party IP Matter，通过 territory-specific economics、royalty offset、cap、settlement consent 和 launch-at-risk exclusion 控制。
Talk deal?Yes, with scheduled known IP risk.
Base reserve1%-4% of covered sales + upfront reserve.
High case5%-15%; 20%+ only stress.
Next proofClaim chart + EP opposition + territory economics.
Risk matrix
Territory 风险矩阵
| Territory | Claim coverage | Validity discount | Damages / remedy | Deal action |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Europe / EP | High EP claim 1 70% homolog language is the broadest text. | Medium breadth creates support / enablement attack. | High injunction and damages leverage can drive settlement. | Separate economics; reopener if EP narrows/revokes; cap and offset required. |
| U.S. | Medium US claim architecture is narrower than EP but lists homologs. | Medium Amgen/Juno/Idenix support discount. | Medium §284 royalty and willfulness stress, controlled by conduct. | Only valid/enforceable/asserted claims; exclude MNC launch-at-risk enhanced damages. |
| China mainland | Low local analysis shows no mainland layout. | Low no active local claim identified. | Low exclude from base unless new coverage appears. | Express exclusion from patent-family indemnity and royalty base. |
| RoW | Watch depends on granted claims by country. | Watch varies by jurisdiction. | Watch no automatic global inclusion. | Country-by-country schedule; no coverage, no pass-through. |
Damages scenarios
固定场景测算
这些场景用于内部谈判准备。真正条款应限定 covered product、covered territory、valid/enforceable/asserted claim、post-notice period，并排除 China mainland。
Deliverables
成文产出
01
赔偿范围预估与计算方法
把 exposure 拆成 sales base、territory、valid claim、apportionment、royalty、willfulness 六个变量，并给出 low/base/high 区间。
02 Case 和法规依据关系图把 EP/US claim、§112、§284、Juno/Kite、Idenix、Bayer、EU/UPC 救济规则映射到谈判变量。
03 Deal 约束与谈判策略给出 Known IP Risk schedule、limited indemnity、royalty offset、settlement consent 和 launch-at-risk 排除措辞。
04 Case 事实、文件、分析和结论逐个 case 罗列事实背景、source file、对本 deal 的作用和可直接进入谈判 memo 的结论。
05 Claim Chart 工作稿把目标 claim element、我方技术事实、match 状态、counterargument 和 confidence level 放在同一张表里。
06 Deal Term Sheet 包把 MNC demand、我方回应、fallback、red line 和 sample wording 变成谈判桌可直接使用的结构。
07 Source Library按 primary source、secondary report、internal analysis 分类列出专利、判例、法规和本地文件。
Current answer
建议谈判姿态
不能承认完整产品侵权
目前只确认一个位点进入目标专利族的 asserted zone，另一位点没有落入。赔偿基数应围绕 covered territory 和 incremental value，不应直接套用产品全球销售额。
核心风险在 US/EP
EP claim 1 的 70% identity 写法最宽；US 授权 claim 更窄但列明 homolog 和 Cocal 相关 SEQ ID。中国大陆不应进入该 patent family 的赔偿基数。
Patent posture
专利族如何影响 deal
`EP3684786B1` claim 1 把 VSV Indiana ectodomain 的 47/354 位点突变扩展到 70% identity homolog，并要求仍能膜融合但不与 LDL receptor 互动。这个结构天然给对方 enforcement leverage，但也暴露了 overbroad genus / insufficient support 的攻击点。
`US12091434B2` 授权 claim 1 不同：它写成至少 90% identical to SEQ ID NO:1 或列明 homolog，claim 2 涵盖包括 Cocal 相关 SEQ ID 的组合。美国风险存在，但不是 EP 那种纯 70% 泛化。
Deal typeOut-license to MNC
Territory leverGlobal / ex-China / ex-US must be priced separately
Known issue354 equivalent position; second mutation outside target patent
Practical assumptionAssertion expected after commercial visibility
Historical anchors
可用于谈判桌的 case comps
| Case | 为什么相关 | 经济结果 | 对本 deal 的含义 |
|---|
Exposure model
赔偿 / 许可负担测算
Low case
$0-15M
invalidity / narrowing / defense-only posture
Base reserve
$65M
reasonable royalty + settlement reserve
High stress
$120M
adverse judgment before indemnity cap
该模型用于谈判准备，不是法律意见。真正 term sheet 应把 sales base 限定在 covered products、 covered countries、valid and enforceable claims、post-notice period，并排除 China mainland。
Term sheet stance
条款建议
Must have
- Known IP Risk schedule 明确列入 Paris-Saclay / CNRS / Kelonia / Lilly patent family。
- Indemnity cap 限定为我方已收现金或单独较低上限，不含 MNC lost profits / consequential damages。
- Third-party license fee 先进入 royalty offset / stacking cap。
- Settlement consent：MNC 单方和解不得自动传导给我方。
Fallback
- 若 MNC 坚持 IP indemnity，可限定在已披露 patent family、已授权且未无效 claim、covered territory。
- 费用分担可随 milestone 递增，但 commercial launch-at-risk 后我方责任递减。
- 共同推进 EP opposition / US invalidity / non-infringement strategy。
Reject
- Uncapped third-party patent indemnity。
- 把全球产品销售额作为默认赔偿基数。
- 把 MNC 自行选择的 launch-at-risk、拒绝 design-around 或拒绝挑战专利的后果转嫁给我方。
Apply next
下一步工作包
- 锁定 territory 和 economics。 用 global / ex-China / ex-US 三套销售曲线分别测算。
- 补齐 patent file wrapper。 下载完整 US/EP prosecution history、EP opposition 文件、family status。
- 做 claim chart。 只围绕 354 equivalent position 和 functional limitations，明确 second mutation 不落入。
- 准备谈判附件。 一页 risk allocation term sheet + 一份完整 internal memo。
Source file