---
title: "Jury Verdict | Blog | Exlitem"
meta:
  "og:title": " Jury Verdict | Blog | Exlitem"
---

Jury Verdict Categories

### **Jury Verdict Articles**

Explore jury verdict articles and case studies.

## **Search**

## **Filters**

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Nexus_Pharmaceuticals.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/patent-won-for-bp-drug-but-court-awards-zero-damages)

[**Patent Infringement**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/category/patent-infringement) [**Healthcare Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law)

March 16, 2026

###### [Patent Won for BP Drug, but Court Awards Zero Damages.](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/patent-won-for-bp-drug-but-court-awards-zero-damages)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/patent-won-for-bp-drug-but-court-awards-zero-damages)

In a complex legal battle within the pharmaceutical industry, Nexus Pharmaceuticals, Inc. took on Exela Pharma Sciences, LLC over the rights to a stabilized, "ready-to-use" blood pressure medication. Nexus had developed a specialized formula of ephedrine sulfate that eliminated the need for manual dilution during surgical emergencies. While a Delaware jury ultimately found that Exela had willfully infringed one of Nexus’s key patents and upheld the validity of the underlying technology, the victory proved bittersweet. Despite the finding of intentional wrongdoing, the jury refused to grant Nexus any monetary compensation, leaving the dollar amounts for lost profits and royalties completely blank on the final verdict form.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/Share_Our_Selves_Cor.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/non-profit-vs-city-zoning-laws-block-healthcare-expansion)

[**Healthcare Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law)

February 6, 2026

###### [Non-Profit vs. City: Zoning Laws Block Healthcare Expansion](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/non-profit-vs-city-zoning-laws-block-healthcare-expansion)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/non-profit-vs-city-zoning-laws-block-healthcare-expansion)

The legal dispute between Share Our Selves Corporation and the City of Santa Ana centered on sudden zoning changes that blocked a critical healthcare expansion. After the non-profit provider secured a property to offer medical, dental, and pharmacy services to low-income residents, the City passed ordinances requiring Conditional Use Permits (CUP) specifically for non-profit clinics—a rule that did not apply to for-profit offices. The Plaintiff alleged the City acted in bad faith to prevent "undesirable" groups from accessing care, leading to the collapse of the property deal and the loss of significant non-refundable fees. Counsel for the Plaintiff argued that these actions violated Equal Protection and Substantive Due Process, while the City defended the laws as a valid exercise of land-use authority. To avoid a jury trial, both parties entered a formal settlement agreement. The City agreed to provide a financial payment to the organization to resolve all claims and help offset the planning costs and financial damages incurred during the failed expansion.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/la-county-settles-inmate-medical-neglect-suit-for-7m)

[**Medical Malpractice**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/category/medical-malpractice) [**Healthcare Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law)

October 21, 2025

###### [LA County Settles Inmate Medical Neglect Suit for $7M](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/la-county-settles-inmate-medical-neglect-suit-for-7m)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/la-county-settles-inmate-medical-neglect-suit-for-7m)

Plaintiff Gariel Brownlee filed a civil rights lawsuit against the County of Los Angeles and multiple staff members, including medical doctors, alleging severe failures in providing adequate medical treatment while he was in County custody. The complaint invoked 42 U.S.C, arguing that the alleged negligence and systemic disregard for detainees' health amounted to cruel and unusual punishment and constituted malpractice. Brownlee sought compensation for lasting physical injury, emotional distress, and future care costs. Just before jury selection commenced, the parties settled the case for $7,000,000. The agreement resolved all claims without an admission of liability by the County.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/62m-settlement-seoul-medical-group-false-claims-case)

[**Healthcare Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law) [**False Claims **](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/category/false-claims-)

October 13, 2025

###### [$62M Settlement: Seoul Medical Group False Claims Case](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/62m-settlement-seoul-medical-group-false-claims-case)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/62m-settlement-seoul-medical-group-false-claims-case)

A landmark Qui Tam lawsuit, United States of America, ex rel Paul Pew v. Seoul Medical Group, Inc., et al., has concluded with a massive $62 million settlement on March 26. The action, filed in the Central District of California, alleged that Seoul Medical Group (SMG) and its subsidiary Advanced Medical Management (AMM) submitted false diagnosis codes to fraudulently inflate payments from the Medicare Advantage program. The total settlement was paid by four entities: SMG and AMM (over $58M), former owner Dr. Min Young Cha ($1.8M), and Renaissance Imaging Medical Associates ($2.4M). The case also included claims of retaliation against the whistleblower, former executive Paul Pew, resolving his personal claims for wrongful termination and distress.

[![Card Image](https://media.jurimatic.com/cdn-cgi/image/q=70/images/default_1.webp)](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/innovative-health-wins-442m-antitrust-verdict-vs-biosense)

[**Antitrust**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/category/antitrust-jury-verdicts-settlements) [**Healthcare Law**](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law)

September 15, 2025

###### [Innovative Health Wins $442M Antitrust Verdict vs Biosense](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/innovative-health-wins-442m-antitrust-verdict-vs-biosense)

[](https://exlitem.com/jury-verdict/category/healthcare-law/jury-verdict/innovative-health-wins-442m-antitrust-verdict-vs-biosense)

In a major antitrust battle over cardiac catheter markets, Innovative Health LLC sued Biosense Webster, Inc. for monopolization, attempted monopolization, and unlawful tying under the Sherman Act and California’s Cartwright Act. The case centered on Biosense’s CARTO 3 cardiac mapping system and its high-density mapping and ultrasound catheters. Innovative alleged Biosense tied clinical support to catheter purchases, blocked reprocessed competitors, and restricted hospital choices. On May 16, 2025, a California jury sided with Innovative on four counts, awarding $147,406,481 in damages, which are trebled by law to $442,219,443. The verdict underscores strict enforcement of antitrust rules in medical device markets and highlights the risks of exclusionary practices.