$2.54 billion Damages in Idenix Sets New Record
In 2016, a jury in the awarded Idenix Pharmaceuticals LLC a record-setting $2.54 billion in damages against Gilead Sciences, Inc.. [Award overturned in 2018.]
$1.725 billion in Boston Scientific v. Cordis, awarded in 2010.
$1.456 billion in Marvell Semiconductor v. Carnegie Mellon University, awarded in late 2012. [Figure reduced on appeal.]
$1.67 billion in Abbott Labs v. Centocor and New York University, awarded in 2009, [subsequently overturned in 2011].
$1 billion in El Dupont De Nemours v. Monsanto, awarded in 2013.
The list excludes the Apple v. Samsung award which involves both design patents and trademark claims.
Howard, B Lex Machina , 19 December 2016

Pfizer, Takeda settle Protonix patent case with generic drugmakers for $2.15 billion StarTribune, 12 Jun 2013

Caltech wins a $1.1-billion patent verdict against Apple and Broadcom
This is the sixth-largest patent verdict of all time, according to Bloomberg. Apple are likely to offer an aggressive defence in this dispute over microchips.
Decker A, Lopez I & Bultman M, Bloomberg, Los Angeles Times, 30 Jan 2020

Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp
Alcatel-Lucent v. Microsoft Corp., also known as Lucent Technologies Inc. v. Gateway Inc., was a long-running patent infringement case between Alcatel-Lucent and Microsoft.
Last edited on 24 Feb 2019, Wikipedia

Apple wins reversal in University of Wisconsin patent lawsuit
Stempel, J, Technology News, 28 Sep 2018

Enhanced Damages, Litigation Cost Recovery, and Interest
Punitive damages are generally prohibited in the rest of the world. However courts in Germany and France have occasionally awarded royalty amounts 25% to 100% higher than those that would have been negotiated, which may serve as a form of deterrence.
Seaman CB, Chien CV, Contreras JL, Cotter TF, Love BJ. and Siebrasse N, Patent Remedies and Complex Products: Toward a Global Consensus, Jul 2019

AIPLA Survey of Costs of Patent Litigation and Inter Partes Review
Every other year the American Intellectual Property Law Association (AIPLA) conducts a survey, which provides the best average estimates of the costs of patent infringement litigation in federal court. Some portions of the most recent report available, the 2015 Report of the Economic Survey, are summarised.
Vermont, S, PatentAttorney.com , 30 Jan 2017

U.S. jury awards Apple $539 million in Samsung patent retrial
A U.S. jury Samsung Electronics Co Ltd should pay $539 million to Apple Inc for copying patented smartphone features. Wolfe, J and Nellis, S, Reuters Business News, May 2019

FTO analysis: a king among patent searches
Developing and refining products and services is a complex and costly process. Mistakes become exponentially more expensive as this process progresses and can – if they occur at a late stage owing to problems with the production or sale of finished products – easily cost hundreds of thousands, or even millions, of euros. . . . . The tool used to assess these risks is a freedom-to-operate (FTO) analysis.
European Patent Office's Patent Information News , p12-13, 1 Jan 2016

How Often Do Non-Practicing Entities Win Patent Suits?
Allison, JR, Lemley, MA & Schwartz, DL, (March 18, 2016). Berkeley Technology Law Journal , Forthcoming; Stanford Law and Economics Olin Working Paper No. 485; Stanford Public Law Working Paper No. 2750128; Northwestern Public Law Research Paper No. 16-08; Northwestern Law & Econ Research Paper No. 16-03. Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=2750128

Variant sequences: the new frontier in sequence IP.
Sherin, E Life Science Intellectual Property Review, 12 April 2018.

Increasing patent value by conducting pre-filing prior art searches
The estimated cost of a US patent is $30-50,000. A search that finds highly relevant prior art saves organisations this amount by either dissauding them from engaging the patent system in the first place or by enabling the applicant to adjust the proposed claims.
World Patent Information , Volume 44, Pages A1-A3, March 2016

Amendment - Changing a patent application after filing
When a patent application is written by an attorney, it is carefully crafted to claim something novel and inventive which still provides broad protection. So, after going to all that trouble, why would anyone then want to change the application later?
Patent applications are generally amended to overcome an objection raised by the Patent Office Examiner. The objection may be that the claimed invention is not novel, perhaps due to some prior art which was not known about at the time of filing, but which surfaced during the official search.
Albright IP, Patents, accessed 14 July 2018

Revisiting an Old Standard – 80% of Technical Information is Found Only in Patents The patenting of chemical substances represents a reasonable percentage of the technologies covered by the world’s patenting authorities, and thus represents a reasonable collection to study to determine how often technologies mentioned in patents are never mentioned elsewhere. In this study the substances associated with every patent included in the CAS literature database were extracted. These discrete chemical entities were then searched, and all literature references associated with them discovered. From these the patent documents were excluded, and again the substances were extracted. A comparison of the substances coming from the non-patent literature references to those coming from the patent references showed that 95% of the patented substances did not appear in the non-patent literature references. Once again, this example only covered chemical technologies, and is thus not applicable to other technology areas, but in this case the percentage of information found in patents that is never published elsewhere is actually significantly larger than the 80% value that has been bandied about for more than 30 years.

Trippe, A, Patinformatics.com , 21 April 2014

“80% of technical information found only in patents”– Is there proof of this?
This sentence is well known among information and patent professionals. The 80%-phrase cannot be used without making some limitations, nevertheless this will continue existing for a long period of time.
Asche, G, Boehringer Ingelheim Pharma GmbH & Co. KG, World Patent Information, Volume 48, Pages 16–28, March 2017

Productivity, a key driver of economic growth in countries, was demonstrated to be linked to innovation. The authors also found that an increase in one standard deviation in patenting activity increases income per capita by 0.28 standard deviation. Data for total factor productivity (TFP) came from the World Input Output Database.
Global Innovation Spillovers and Productivity: Evidence from 100 years of World Patent Data, Berkes, E, Manysheva, K and Mestieri, M, The Research Centre for Economic Analysis (RCEA), 5 Apr 2021, accessed 20 Aug 2021

In an article on the election of a new NAI Fellow, their achievements are summarised.
Election to NAI Fellow is the highest professional distinction accorded solely to academic inventors. To date, NAI Fellows hold more than 41,500 issued U.S. patents, which the organization says have generated more than 11,000 licensed technologies and companies and created more than 36 million jobs. According to NAI, $1.6 trillion in revenue has been generated based on NAI Fellow discoveries.
Professor named National Academy of Inventors Fellow, Terrazas M, UGA Today, University of Georgia, 3 Dec 2019, accessed 7 Jan 2020.

IPR-intensive industries in the UK account for nearly one in three jobs, and over 40 percent of GDP, according to a study by the European Patent Office (EPO) and the European Union Intellectual Property Office (EUIPO). The report looked at the EU economy between 2014 and 2016.
Intellectual property rights intensive industries and economic performance in the European Union, Industry-Level Analysis Report, Sep 2019, accessed 25 Sep 2019

SMEs that have filed at least one IPR are 21% more likely to experience a subsequent growth period, and 10% more likely to become a high-growth firm.
High-growth firms and intellectual property rights – IPR profile of high-potential SMEs in Europe, European Patent Office and European Union Intellectual Property Office, May 2019