The very able USDC Judge Beth Labson-Freeman, sitting in San Jose, California is again quoted — and the date is now set for argument — on whether there will be remittitur of the verdict amount, now that both side’s briefs are on file.
When she rules, we will cover it right here. In the mean time, I’ll simply let the readership know that there is no real news in this Bloomberg piece, if the readership has been paying attention to our coverage — we had all of this a full month ago (April 2, 2016).
. . . .At trial, Gilead and Merck each tried to show the other was claiming credit for scientific advances that wasn’t due. Over two weeks, a parade of doctors and scientists for Gilead, Pharmasset and Merck and its partner Ionis Pharmaceuticals Inc. testified about their roles in the patent process. . . .
Gilead contends that in 2004, at a point when Merck was exploring a take-over of Pharmasset, [a Merck scientist] participated in a phone call in which the secret details of Pharmasset’s compound were discussed. In a pretrial deposition he gave “unequivocal testimony” that he wasn’t on the call, Gilead said. He went on to recant his statement in court when he told the jury he “forgot” he was on the phone call and he had “overconcluded. . . .”
So now you know — though I’d not be at all surprised to see the parties settle, confidentially, for far less than $200 million. And onward, driving north on a perfect Sunday afternoon with college age folks in tow. Smile. . . .