Forbes has a round-up of reports as well as a summary of Ray Gilmartin's testimony. Dow Jones Newswires has more, including more Mark Lanier attempts to bend the rules, this time by using a loud voice at sidebars to argue to the jury.
The argument for punitive damages appears to be that a Merck scientist summarized data that was submitted to the FDA in a memo, but Merck didn't submit the summary itself. This is like saying that if John Smith submitted a 2003 tax return for $25,000 in income, a 2004 tax return for $34,000, and a 2005 tax return for $31,000 in income, he's guilty of tax evasion if he writes a letter to a friend saying that he averaged $30,000 in income from 2003-2005 if he doesn't also copy the IRS on that letter. (Update, April 7: it's worse than that.)