You could have both sides present expert witnesses that are assessed by a specialized court, with no jury and with judges who have relevant training. This isn't possible at the Federal level and in most states since they constitutionally require jury trials for civil cases above a certain dollar amount, but you could do it in states that do not, and the other states could amend their constitutions.

Specialized courts for things like patent law are used in lots of places outside the US precisely because juries are often unsuitable for evaluating technical questions (among other reasons).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patent_court

You're seriously citing patent court as a better example?

Patent law I think is one of the most laughably dysfunctional things courts have tried to understand.

The other major problem is bribes. It'd be so risky to bribe an entire jury that I imagine most companies wouldn't dare. But in my gut I imagine most judges could be influenced for much less than 2 billion.

Are you talking about patent law in the United States? As I explained, the US does not use the specialized court system I described, relying on juries of laymen to assess patent cases, which has been argued by eminent people to be the primary source the dysfunctions of US patent legal system: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3270000

If you are talking about patent legal systems outside the US, you'd have to argue those systems are worse to use it as evidence against my claims. (If all patent systems are bad worldwide, this doesn't tell us much about the value of specialized courts other than that they can't solve unsolved problems.) Could you point to such an argument?

If you think that increasing the number of necessary people to bribe is an effective way to prevent bribery, then you can just increase the number of judges, which could be indexed to the amount being claimed.

I'm talking about in the US. You're right on the first point - 95% of patent cases do have a jury. The part I felt was dysfunctional was that often times judges seem LESS aware of many modern topics (e.g. tech) than a cross-section of laypeople. Plus a huge number of patent cases happen in some rando district of East Texas which is problematic, but that's really beside your point.

I'd be okay with a "jury of judges" approach (provided it was at least 6, like a normal jury) to reduce undue influence, if legal system could hypothetically arrange that.