A federal jury in Delaware has awarded $135.6 million in compensatory damages and $271.2 million in punitive damages against California-based Amgen Inc., according to this press release issued by the plaintiff.

The plaintiff, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Inc., accused Amgen of anticompetitive practices in pricing its drug Repatha, which competes with Regeneron’s Praluent.

The large punitive damages award in this case and in the Walmart case (see below) are a reminder that punitive damages are regularly awarded in corporation-versus-corporation lawsuits. Policy discussions about punitive damages often mistakenly assume that punitive damages are awarded only in cases involving “little guy” consumers suing big corporations.

Reuters reports that a jury in federal court in Arkansas has awarded $72.7 million in compensatory damages and $150 million in punitive damages against Walmart in a trade secrets case.

The plaintiff is a startup company, Zest Labs, who claims that Walmart stole its trade secrets for reducing food waste.

ABC news reports on a Georgia jury verdict against Monsanto, awarding $65 million in compensatory damages and $2 billion in punitive damages to a man who claims that exposure to the weedkiller Roundup caused his cancer.

By my count, this is at least the third time that a jury has awarded $2 billion in a Roundup lawsuit. See prior reports here and here. Those awards were both reduced by the trial judge, although the reduced awards were still enormous: $87 million and and $400 million.

There have also been a number of defense verdicts, but those don’t typically generate front-page headlines. Bayer, which acquired Monsanto, maintains a website that includes a list of all the trial results going in both directions.

This is an aspect of our legal system that’s hard to explain or justify. If you bring a lawsuit alleging that you developed cancer after using Roundup, and you present the same type of scientific and medical evidence that other plaintiffs have presented, you might get a jury award for billions of dollars or you might get absolutely nothing.

This story in Law360 reports on arguments before the Washington Supreme Court in a case in which a jury awarded $135 million in punitive damages against Monsanto, based on allegations that chemicals leaked from light fixtures in a school.  We previously reported on the case here. At the core of the dispute is the fact that Washington law does not permit punitive damages, but the trial court allowed the plaintiffs to recover punitive damages by applying a mixture of Washington law and Missouri law.

The Daily Journal reports that Judge James Selna of the Central District of California issued an order this week in which he rejected a jury’s award of $53.6 million in punitive damages in the copyright dispute between the pop group OMG Girlz and toymaker MGA. According to the article, Judge Selna ruled that the plaintiffs had presented sufficient evidence to support an award of compensatory damages, but had not presented evidence of “recklessness or willful indifference” required for an award of punitive damages.

The Missouri Court of Appeals issued this opinion on December 3 upholding a $149 million punitive damages award in a case involving a compensatory damages award of $28 million.

The case involved a hotel security guard who used a master key to enter the room of a hotel guest and sexually assault her. The plaintiff sued Hyatt for negligent hiring, supervision, and training.

On appeal Hyatt argued that the record was insufficient to support any award of punitive damages. The Court of Appeals disagreed, holding that the punitive damages were justified by Hyatt’s failure to enforce its own policies, and by its failure to cooperate with the police investigation of the assault.

Hyatt seemingly would have had a strong argument that the amount of the award is excessive, in light of the Supreme Court caselaw stating that punitive damages generally should not exceed the amount of compensatory damages in case involving “substantial” compensatory damages, but the opinion does not indicate that Hyatt raised that issue. Perhaps Hyatt’s counsel had reason to believe this particular court would not be receptive to that argument.

A Connecticut intermediate appellate reversed a $150 million punitive damages award against conspiracy theorist Alex Jones, but otherwise affirmed a judgment that exceeds $1 billion ($965 million in compensatory damages and $321.7 million in attorney’s fees).

The plaintiffs in the case are relatives of the victims of the Sandy Hook school shooting. They sued Jones for defamation, based on his false claims that the school shooting was a hoax and that the victims’ family members were paid actors hired as part of a gun-control conspiracy.

The trial court awarded $150 million in punitive damages under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act, but the appellate court reversed that award on the ground that the plaintiffs’ injuries came from false language, rather than speech related to advertising or marketing, as required under the Act.

Jones also owes millions in a separate Texas state court proceeding brought by the parents of a child killed at Sandy Hook. He has declared bankruptcy and satirical news source The Onion was the winning bidder for his website, Infowars, in a bankruptcy auction.

USA today reports that a federal jury in Texas has awarded $38.6 million in compensatory damages and $60 million in punitive damages to the family of Botham Jean, who was fatally shot in his apartment by Amber Guyger, an off-duty police officer who said she mistook Jean’s apartment for her own.