We previously reported on a huge judgment against Microsoft for alleged infringement of a patent owned by i4i Limited Partnership. In our report, we said (based on another blog’s post about the same case) that the judgment included $40 million in punitive damages.

Microsoft has now filed its opening brief on appeal (link courtesy of AmLaw Daily), which makes clear that this is technically not a punitive damages case at all. The district court awarded $40 million in “enhanced damages,” which are authorized under the Lanham Patent Act for cases of wilful infringement. Such damages are conceptually similar to punitive damages (since they are awarded to punish the defendant, not to compensate the plaintiff), but they are not true “punitive damages” in the traditional sense of that term. Sorry for the misinformation. Nothing to see here. Move along.

Bloomberg reports that a Los Angeles jury has awarded $13.8 million in punitive damages in the retrial of Bullock v. Philip Morris. The compensatory damages were $850,000.

As readers of this blog may recall, last year the Court of Appeal reversed a $28 million punitive damages award in this case and ordered a retrial on punitive damages. We blogged quite a bit about that decision and the subsequent proceedings before the California Supreme Court. In a nutshell, the Court of Appeal reversed because the trial court improperly refused a defense request for an instruction telling the jury not to punish for harm to others (i.e., an instruction based on Philip Morris v. Williams.)

The jury in the first trial actually awarded $28 billion in punitive damages, resulting in the second largest judgment in U.S. history. The trial court, however, cut that down to $28 million on posttrial motions. On retrial, plaintiffs’ lawyer Michael Piuze again asked the jury to award “billions,” but instead he got a little less than half of the previous $28 million award. Still a lot of money, but surely a disappointment to Piuze. According to Bloomberg, one of the dissenting jurors wanted to award $500 million. As it is, the $13.8 million award is more than 16 times higher than the actual damages.

The Hawaii Intermediate Court of Appeals has issued an opinion reversing a $12.5 million punitive damages award in a products liability case.

The plaintiff was injured in an auto accident and sued Takata Corporation, a seatbelt manufacturer. The plaintiff claimed he was wearing his seatbelt during the accident but it failed to restrain him and he was ejected from the vehicle. After a jury trial, the plaintiff obtained a judgment for $4.5 million in compensatory damages and $12.5 million in punitive damages.

The Hawaii appellate court reversed the entire judgment and ordered a new trial, ruling that the trial court had erroneously excluded testimony by a defense expert. The court, having ordered a complete new trial, did not need to address any punitive damages issues. Nevertheless, it went on to hold that the plaintiff was not entitled to punitive damages because he failed to prove by clear and convincing evidence that Takata knew or should have known that the seatbelt in question was susceptible to failure.

This is just my personal nonscientific observation, but there seems to be an above-average percentage of complete reversals in cases involving huge punitive damages awards. If that’s true, it’s probably because a disproportionately large punitive damages award is often a sign that something went wrong during the trial. That’s my defense lawyer perspective but I’m sure the plaintiffs’ bar sees things differently.

UPDATE: For a summary of other aspects of the opinion (Udac v. Takata), see Hawaii Legal News.

Reuters has this report about the results thus far in the series of individual smoker lawsuits taking place in Florida.

As mentioned in prior posts, these suits are taking place as a result of the Florida Supreme Court’s 2006 decision in Engle v. Liggett Group, which reversed a $145 billion class action punitive damages award and ruled that the plaintiffs had to bring their own individual cases to prove that cigarettes caused their illnesses.

According to the Reuters story, the plaintiffs have prevailed in seven of the nine cases to go to trial thus far, winning damages ranging from $600,000 to $30 million. Only two of the plaintiffs have recovered punitive damages.

Back in 2007, a New Mexico jury awarded $3.2 million in compensatory damages and $50 million in punitive damages for the alleged neglect of a nursing home patient. The defendant appealed, arguing, among other things, that the punitive damages were unconstitutionally excessive, since the ratio of punitive damages to compensatory damages exceeded 15 to 1.

Last week, the New Mexico Court of Appeals issued an opinion (Keith v. ManorCare, Inc.) reversing the entire judgment and ordering a new trial. The court did not reach the ratio issue because it concluded that the trial court made a prejuducial instructional error that affected both liability and damages, requiring a complete new trial.

U.S. District Judge Leonard Davis of the Eastern District of Texas has entered judgment against Microsoft for $200 million in compensatory damages and $40 million in punitive damages, based on Microsoft’s willful infringement of a patent owned by i4i Limited Partnership. Judge Davis has also ordered Microsoft to stop selling any version of Microsoft Word that is capable of opening an XML file. In other words, Microsoft can no longer sell Microsoft Word 2003 or Microsoft Word 2007.

Hat tip: Patently-O.

Bloomberg is reporting that U.S. District Judge John Keenan intends to dismiss the plaintiffs’ punitive damages claims in a massive lawsuit against Merck & Co.

The lawsuit alleges that Merck’s osteoporosis drug Fosamax causes irreversible “jaw rot.” (I don’t know exactly what that is, but it doesn’t sound good.) Merck is facing more than 850 lawsuits over Fosamax. Judge Keenan’s ruling comes in connection with three bellwether trials set to begin on August 11.

The plaintiffs’ lawyers are downplaying the dismissal of their punitive damages claim. “The punitive damages are just the gravy,” said plaintiffs’ counsel Timothy O’Brien.

The Associated Press is reporting that a Los Angeles jury has awarded a $370 million verdict, including $25 million in punitive damages, in a defamation lawsuit against Georges Marciano, co-founder of Guess, Inc.

The plaintiffs in the action are five former employees of Marciano. He sued them in 2007, accusing them of stealing from him. His claims were dismissed, but the ex-employees counter-claimed for defamation.

Law.com is reporting that a Texas jury has awarded $178.7 million, including $145 million in punitive damages, against NL Industries (a holding company) and its general counsel (who is personally liable for $5 million of the punitive damages). The Law.com story says the plaintiffs were minority shareholders in a subsidiary of NL Industries. They claimed they lost most of their investment when the holding company improperly stripped the subsidiary of its assets. Not suprisingly, NL is planning an appeal.

A press release on PR Newswire reports that a Kentucky jury has ruled in favor of the plaintiffs in a mass tort action against DuPont arising out of the release of toxic fumes from a chemical plant.

So far, the jury has awarded $1.25 million in compensatory damages and $12.5 million in punitive damages. But those awards are for only 6 of 179 plaintiffs. The other 173 cases remain to be tried. Apparently, the trial court has ordered that the liability findings from this trial will be binding in the subsequent trials. The subsequent trials will apparently focus only on causation and compensatory damages. Any plaintiff who recovers compensatory damages will automatically be entitled to a punitive damages award of ten times the amount of compensatory damages.

Based on the awards to the first 6 plaintiffs, this case is on pace to generate awards totaling $37.3 million in compensatory damages and $373 million in punitive damages.