In August, the Shanghai High Court issued a decision in favour of a distributor (Rainbow Medical Equipment) against Johnson & Johnson (J&J), regarding J&J including minimum retail prices in its distribution agreement. The court applied a Rule of Reason approach to this case requiring Rainbow to prove that the resale price maintenance provisions “created an unreasonable restraint on trade and/or competition” in the relevant market. Rainbow was able to prove this to the court, by showing that the provisions would reduce or restrict competition – this led to the High Court overturning an earlier decision by the Intermediate Court, and finding that J&J’s resale price maintenance provisions violated the PRC Anti-Monopoly Law. The court awarded damages to Rainbow in the sum of RMB530,000 (much less than what Rainbow was seeking) on the basis of lost profits due to the inclusion of the resale price maintenance provisions in the distribution agreement. Rainbow had sought orders for consequential damages, but these were resisted.