I'm sure that there are some who might consider that to be crazy talk. I'm not so sure and here's why: LifeScan was the plaintiff. Their claims for the most part failed. That fact by itself doesn't create any obligation to compensate DECN. It may be worth noting that neither side was awarded attorney fees in the Consent Judgment.
DECN, etc. had counterclaims (anti-trust and false advertising according to JNJ) that they agreed to withdraw. It's my understanding that the sole basis for the "healthy sum" settlement payment was that agreement to withdraw. The amount would be based on JNJ's assessment of the likelihood of the success of the anti-trust claims or the nuisance value of defending against them. Any infringement claims by DECN aren't part of the suit and shouldn't have been considered in any settlement. If they were there wouldn't have been a need or a justification for the Nevada case. JNJ could simply point to the settlement in California.
I hope we find out and if I'm wrong (and obviously I could be) about the underlined statement I hope that someone will clearly explain why. Was there some separate settlement ("J&J will pay the company for their actions a cash settlement in an amount that has been made confidential by the court" per the June 2 PR) and what would the basis have been for it?
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
