It could be that there was something emotional, like some sneaky email or text that came out to make the company look bad on an emotional level that resonated with the jury, who wanted to punish the bad behavior.
However, the factual information of the case may not even support their judgment, which could be overturned or hugely reduced.
Looking at the Arstechnica article, it looks like the university's lawyers went full blast on the emotional strategy to make Marvell look like some big evil corporation bent on stealing the identity of the victimized university. Marvell actually objected to this sensationalism, and that objection was sustained but the jury still heard a bit so damage was done before the objection was raised.
The reason this works so well for patent cases is the jury is incapable of comprehending patent terminology. So they just latch onto whichever lawyer/corporate identify they like better. Patent interpretation is too complicated for juries, they are not the right tool for handing out justice.
I haven't looked at the details for this case, but I recall how this same thing played out in the Apple v. Samsung case, where the jury actually came to impossible conclusions. They failed to do simple logic/reason, and just attacked the "bad" guy and defied law/facts.
I'm sure Marvell will be fine. The patents the university used to sue will probably be found invalid and the case will evaporate on appeal. You see this trend, with courts and the USPTO being more aggressive with tossing out questionable patents (relying on non-obviousness). But even assuming the worst for Marvell and the patents aren't thrown out, then I bet the jury award gets eviscerated and reduced to some nominal amount that would be a slap on the wrist etc. Just need to be patient.
