close

For more than four decades, Fenwick & West LLP has helped some of the world’s most recognized companies become, and remain, market leaders. From emerging enterprises to large public corporations, our clients are leaders in the technology, life sciences and cleantech sectors and are fundamentally changing the world through rapid innovation.  MORE >

Fenwick & West was founded in 1972 in the heart of Silicon Valley—before “Silicon Valley” existed—by four visionary lawyers who left a top-tier New York law firm to pursue their shared belief that technology would revolutionize the business world and to pioneer the legal work for those technological innovations. In order to be most effective, they decided they needed to move to a location close to primary research and technology development. These four attorneys opened their first office in downtown Palo Alto, and Fenwick became one of the first technology law firms in the world.  MORE >

From our founding in 1972, Fenwick has been committed to promoting diversity and inclusion both within our firm and throughout the legal profession. For almost four decades, the firm has actively promoted an open and inclusive work environment and committed significant resources towards improving our diversity efforts at every level.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we are proud of our commitment to the community and to our culture of making a difference in the lives of individuals and organizations in the communities where we live and work. We recognize that providing legal services is not only an essential part of our professional responsibility, but also an excellent opportunity for our attorneys to gain valuable practical experience, learn new areas of the law and contribute to the community.  MORE >

Year after year, Fenwick & West is honored for excellence in the legal profession. Many of our attorneys are recognized as leaders in their respective fields, and our Corporate, Tax, Litigation and Intellectual Property Practice Groups consistently receive top national and international rankings, including:

  • Named Technology Group of the Year by Law360
  • Ranked #1 in the Americas for number of technology deals in 2015 by Mergermarket
  • Nearly 20 percent of Fenwick partners are ranked by Chambers
  • Consistently ranked among the top 10 law firms in the U.S. for diversity
  • Recognized as having top mentoring and pro bono programs by Euromoney

MORE >

We take sustainability very seriously at Fenwick. Like many of our clients, we are adopting policies that reduce consumption and waste, and improve efficiency. By using technologies developed by a number of our cleantech clients, we are at the forefront of implementing sustainable policies and practices that minimize environmental impact. In fact, Fenwick has earned recognition in several areas as one of the top US law firms for implementing sustainable business practices.  MORE >

At Fenwick, we have a passion for excellence and innovation that mirrors our client base. Our firm is making revolutionary changes to the practice of law through substantial investments in proprietary technology tools and processes—allowing us to deliver best-in-class legal services more effectively.   MORE >

Mountain View Office
Silicon Valley Center
801 California Street
Mountain View, CA 94041
650.988.8500

San Francisco Office
555 California Street
13th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94104
415.875.2300

Seattle Office
1191 Second Avenue
10th Floor
Seattle, WA 98101
206.389.4510

New York Office
1211 Avenue of the Americas
32nd Floor
New York, NY 10036
212.921.2001

Shanghai Office
Unit 908, 9/F, Kerry Parkside Office
No. 1155 Fang Dian Road
Pudong New Area, Shanghai 201204
P.R. China
+86 21 8017 1200


Litigation Alert: Supreme Court Imposes Limits on Punitive Damages Awards

On February 20, 2007, Philip Morris won temporary reprieve when the Supreme Court vacated a jury award of $79.5 million in punitive damages to the widow of a deceased smoker, Jesse Williams. The Court held that the award, which was based at least in part on the jury’s desire to punish Philip Morris for harm its products inflicted on other smokers, not just on Williams, violated the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Philip Morris USA v. Williams, 549 U.S. ___ (2007) (No. 05-1256, February 20, 2007) (slip op. at 1). The ruling sends the case back to the Oregon Supreme Court for reconsideration. Notably, however, the Court did not decide the issue most pressing for business: whether the nearly 100-to-1 ratio of punitive to compensatory damages was "grossly excessive."

Williams's widow filed suit in Oregon for negligence and deceit against Philip Morris, alleging that Williams smoked in significant part because Philip Morris led him to believe that it was safe. The jury found Philip Morris and Williams (who had smoked for 42 years) equally negligent for his death, but also that Philip Morris engaged in deceit in the form of systemic, widespread fraud. The jury awarded $821,000 in compensatory damages for the negligence and fraud claims, plus $79.5 million in punitive damages for the fraud claim alone. The trial court found the punitive damages award "excessive" and reduced it to $32 million. The Court of Appeals reinstated the $79.5 million punitive damages award, and the Oregon Supreme Court affirmed.

The Court vacated the award and announced a new rule of punitive damages: a jury may not use a punitive damages award to punish a defendant directly for harm caused to strangers to the litigation. Id. at 5. To permit punishment for injuries to nonparty victims would deny the defendant an opportunity to defend against those alleged harms and would add a "near standardless dimension to the punitive damages equation," magnifying the risks of arbitrariness, uncertainty, and lack of notice which are the hallmark Due Process concerns in punitive damages cases. Id. at 5-6. The Oregon Supreme Court's authorization of the punitive damages award was premised, at least in part, on punishing Philip Morris for harms visited on nonparties. See id. at 9.

Accordingly, the Supreme Court held that the award violated the Due Process Clause of the Constitution.

On the other hand, the Court confirmed that a plaintiff may introduce evidence of harm to nonparties in order to demonstrate that the defendant's conduct was particularly reprehensible. Reprehensibility is the first "guidepost" courts consider in reviewing whether a punitive damages award is grossly excessive, and indeed is the most important indicium of the reasonableness of such an award. State Farm Mutual Auto. Ins. Co. v. Campbell, 538 U.S. 408, 419 (2003). Thus, it was proper for the jury to consider harms to other people based on Philip Morris's campaign to hide the adverse health effects of smoking—though only when determining what the reasonable relationship is between the punitive award and harm to the plaintiff.

The Court noted the inherent practical problem resulting from application of two rules: "How can we know whether a jury, in taking account of harm caused others under the rubric of reprehensibility, also seeks to punish the defendant for having caused injury to others?"

The Majority answered that courts must implement adequate procedural limitations in addition to limiting amounts forbidden as "grossly excessive." Philip Morris, 549 U.S. __ (slip op. at 5). Thus, in cases in which evidence of harm to nonparties is introduced, some protection (i.e., an appropriate jury instruction, such as the instruction Philip Morris requested) is required to ensure that juries are simply determining reprehensibility and not also punishing for harm caused to strangers. Id. at 8, 9.

The ruling was not as sweeping as Philip Morris hoped, however, as the Court did not determine if the award was "grossly excessive" under the three "guideposts" for assessing the reasonableness of punitive damages. In particular, the second "guidepost" looks at the ratio between the harm to the plaintiff and the punitive damages award. Here, punitive damages were nearly 100 times more than the compensatory damages awarded in the case, and many in business were looking for the Court to entrench as a bright-line rule that "few awards exceeding a single-digit ratio between punitive and compensatory damages [] will satisfy due process." Campbell, 538 U.S. at 425. With the Court's ruling focused on procedural safeguards, rather than substantive caps on jury verdicts, the practical import of the case may be limited.

The opinion is at: http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/06pdf/05-1256.pdf


Jennifer Kelly, Senior Associate, Litigation Group
jkelly@fenwick.com, 415.875.2426

Candace Morey, Associate, Litigation Group
cmorey@fenwick.com, 415.875.2408

©2007 Fenwick & West LLP. All Rights Reserved.

This update is intended by Fenwick & West LLP to summarize recent developments in the law. It is not intended, and should not be regarded, as legal advice. Readers who have particular questions about these issues should seek advice of counsel.