or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung requests new Apple trial on claims of jury misconduct
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Samsung requests new Apple trial on claims of jury misconduct

post #1 of 47
Thread Starter 
In post-trial filings on Friday, Samsung revealed it is planning to fight for a new trial against Apple, and to that end entered a number of documents supporting the theory that juror misconduct led to the jury's original $1 billion verdict.

Samsung Phones


Samsung's argument leans heavily on juror interviews published directly following the landmark case, especially those regarding the possible insertion of outside evidence into deliberations by jury foreman Velvin Hogan, reports CNET.

In a post-trial interview, Hogan, a patent holder who served on a jury three times before the Apple and Samsung case, said he helped guide the jury through some of the more complex patent issues. Another juror, Manuel Ilagan, confirmed the claims.

"Some were not sure of how prior art could either render a patent acceptable or whether it could invalidate it," Hogan said during an interview with Bloomberg. "What we did is we started talking about one... (I) laid it out for them."

While the statement is not an admission of introducing evidence not presented by Apple and Samsung during the trial's proceedings, it does raise questions as to what exactly was said and how it may have influenced the jury's final decision.

Post-verdict probes into jury deliberations are a rarity, and carries its own federal rule which states, "during an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment, a juror may not testify about any statement made or incident that occurred during the jury's deliberations." However, if "extraneous prejudicial information was improperly brought to the jury's attention," an inquiry can lead to a retrial.

In this case, Samsung is alleging Hogan introduced "extraneous prejudicial information" by mentioning and possibly instructing jurors with his previous patent case experiences. The jury foreman assured presiding Judge Lucy Koh that he would apply the law as per the Court's instruction "and not based on [his] understanding of the law based on [his] own cases."

Samsung cited a number of cases which were overturned due to jury misconduct, however it remains to be seen whether the Korean company can prove that such action was taken during its trial against Apple.



Also in contention is the limited amount of time with which the parties were allowed to argue their respective cases. Judge Koh allotted 25 hours each for testimony and cross examination and an additional two hours for closing arguments. During the trial, Samsung used up most of its time cross-examining Apple's witnesses, leaving little room for the company to mount its own case. Apple, on the other hand, handled their time in a more efficient manner.

"The court's constraints on trial time, witnesses and exhibits were unprecedented for a patent case of this complexity and magnitude, and prevented Samsung from presenting a full and fair case in response to Apple's many claims," the new trial request states.

As Samsung seeks a totally new trial, Apple is moving ahead with its own agenda, and most recently requested another $707 million be added to its $1 billion damages award. The two parties are scheduled to meet again in December to discuss further injunctions and damages related to post-trial motions.
post #2 of 47

Place your bets, people! I'm sure its going on right now around Vegas and in Ireland.

 

Samsung won't get a new trial.

post #3 of 47

It was already predicted on here that this would happen. That's one of the reasons I like reading the comments. You folk (some of you) seem to be better prognosticators than Michel de Nostredame. <-- no, I'm not endorsing him.
post #4 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Place your bets, people! I'm sure its going on right now around Vegas and in Ireland.

Samsung won't get a new trial.

That is my bet.

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #5 of 47

No way that results in a new trial.  This sort of thing is just part of the jury process.  We all bring our own experience and knowledge to the case.  I was on a juror for a federal drug case.  The defendant was charged with conspiracy to sell crack cocaine.  As you can imagine, the precise definition of what constitutes a conspiracy was very relevant.  One helpful juror explained that when she was in college, the head of her sorority said that if any of them got in trouble they all got in trouble; that's a conspiracy.  Was that good legal advice?  Of course not.  Was it inappropriate for her to say that?  No, it was just her way of talking through her thoughts.  I don't see any difference between that and what Hogan might have said.  He thought he had something relevant to the deliberations so he said it.  That's not "introducing evidence."

 

Now if he went home and printed a bunch of stuff from FOSS Patents and used that to explain why Samsung was in the wrong (or if he even was reading about the topic during the trial) THAT would be jury misconduct.  Hopefully there will no evidence or suggestion that that happened.

post #6 of 47
Are you kidding? Samsung will never hand over the money and the lawyers need to milk millions more out of Samsung. Besides, guess who is hosting the Hawaii Golf tournament all expenses paid with spa treatment? The firms that represent Apple and Samsung thats who.
post #7 of 47

Oh WOW.  Oh WOW.  Oh WOW.  Wow I am glad thats over with.  So can I check in on my company.  Oh I see them down there suing Samsung and they won!  Great.  Oh WOW.  Samsung is acting the victim.  Ha ha.  Go getem guys.  Go thermal on them and lay waste the whole battleground.  Ok can I go and play with  some virgins now?

An Apple man since 1977
Reply
An Apple man since 1977
Reply
post #8 of 47

Samsung's lawyers probably should've used a peremptory challenge or two.  It's a little late to try to put that genie back in the bottle.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #9 of 47

Isn't this the same jury that Samsung had a hand in selecting?  Am I missing something?

Did Samsung's attorneys screw up AGAIN??!!

post #10 of 47

Ha! Apple should just go for 2 billion to shut those thieves up.

We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.- Marshall McLuhan

Join 'The New Middle Class Movement' @ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Ne...45269528896164
Reply
We become what we behold. We shape our tools and then our tools shape us.- Marshall McLuhan

Join 'The New Middle Class Movement' @ http://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Ne...45269528896164
Reply
post #11 of 47
Oh dear god.
post #12 of 47
The only misconduct here is that of Samsung. Innovate or pay!
post #13 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

Place your bets, people! I'm sure its going on right now around Vegas and in Ireland.

 

Samsung won't get a new trial.

 

Samsung's lawyers do a lot of stupid things, as evidenced by the "its just rectanglez" arguments they based their losing defense around. Every motion they file is a Hail Mary play.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
post #14 of 47
"Some were not sure of how prior art could either render a patent acceptable or whether it could invalidate it" - Hogan said.

Which is why it's quite likely that there will be a new trial, and this time true justice may actually prevail... We'll See
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
"Why iPhone"... Hmmm?
Reply
post #15 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by malax View Post

No way that results in a new trial.  This sort of thing is just part of the jury process.  We all bring our own experience and knowledge to the case.  I was on a juror for a federal drug case.  The defendant was charged with conspiracy to sell crack cocaine.  As you can imagine, the precise definition of what constitutes a conspiracy was very relevant.  One helpful juror explained that when she was in college, the head of her sorority said that if any of them got in trouble they all got in trouble; that's a conspiracy.  Was that good legal advice?  Of course not.  Was it inappropriate for her to say that?  No, it was just her way of talking through her thoughts.  I don't see any difference between that and what Hogan might have said.  He thought he had something relevant to the deliberations so he said it.  That's not "introducing evidence."

 

Now if he went home and printed a bunch of stuff from FOSS Patents and used that to explain why Samsung was in the wrong (or if he even was reading about the topic during the trial) THAT would be jury misconduct.  Hopefully there will no evidence or suggestion that that happened.

You're absolutely right malax.

 

The whole point of a jury is that they are composed of ordinary men and women without any necessary special knowledge and expertise. Every juror will of course naturally bring (and are expected to bring) their own knowledge and experience, whether relevant or not, and are encouraged to discuss everything together. The jury is the "finder of facts" and courts are extremely reluctant to overrule a jury's findings.  Samsung's arguments regarding jury misconduct appear frivolous.

 

Regarding Samsung's argument about the time constraints, that is down to the judge's discretion, again something which appeal courts are very reluctant to overrule. In this case the judge was even handed, giving both sides the same time of 25 hours plus 2 hours for summing up. If anybody could complain about lack of time it is Apple who had the burden of proof in a complex case involving a lot of complex  evidence and expert witnesses. The fact is that Apple's lawyers managed their time much more efficiently and were able to present their complex case far more effectively than Samsung, who wasted a lot of time in the earlier part of the trial with lengthy and often irrelevant cross examination and grand standing. Samsung's lawyers have nobody to blame but themselves for their own time mismanagement.

post #16 of 47

Samsung got what they asked for as the court documents show:-

 

 

CASE NO. 11-cv-01846-LHK

SAMSUNG ENTITIES' ANSWER, AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES, AND COUNTERCLAIMS TO APPLE INC.'S AMENDED COMPLAINT; AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL..

...DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

SEC [Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd.], SEA [Samsung Electronics America, Inc.] and STA [Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC] hereby demand a jury trial on all issues.

Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
Better than my Bose, better than my Skullcandy's, listening to Mozart through my LeBron James limited edition PowerBeats by Dre is almost as good as my Sennheisers.
Reply
post #17 of 47
So what I'm reading here is that Samsung is butthurt that someone on the jury actually knew something about intellectual property law and explained it to the other jurors. It sounds like Samsung wanted the jury to be a bunch of uninformed idiots so they could spend weeks brainwashing them into choosing them over a company with an original idea and the guts to bring it to market. It looks like Samsung's legal and marketing teams play from the same losing playbook (not RIM)
post #18 of 47

Samsung's dummy lawyers picked the jury what makes them think that they can do a better job the next time. Maybe they should hire some "C" players.

post #19 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Isn't this the same jury that Samsung had a hand in selecting?  Am I missing something?

Did Samsung's attorneys screw up AGAIN??!!

According to the court transcripts what Mr Hogan told the interviewing attorneys prior to being seated was at odds with his actions once he was seated on the jury. 

melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
melior diabolus quem scies
Reply
post #20 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaHarder View Post

"Some were not sure of how prior art could either render a patent acceptable or whether it could invalidate it" - Hogan said.
Which is why it's quite likely that there will be a new trial, and this time true justice may actually prevail... We'll See

Use of the term "quite likely" seems less than appropriate in a situation where it is extremely rare for a jury's decision to be nullified. Jury nullification is pretty much only used when 1) the jury's decision just doesn't match the law or 2) there is a criminal element to the misconduct - things like bribery, extortion, or coercion through threats of physical harm. That is a pretty tough argument to make in this case.

 

From a legal standpoint, Samsung is just going through the steps. This is not the first nor will it be the last of Samsung's attempts to overturn the verdict. Judges are extremely reluctant to go to that extreme...your opinion of "justice" being wholly irrelevant.

post #21 of 47
A desperate company represented by desperate lawyers covering their desperate a****.
post #22 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by anantksundaram View Post

A desperate company represented by desperate lawyers covering their desperate a****.

 

Even the die hard Apple apologists know deep down inside that the jury was unfairly swayed by Hogan.  The sooner you realize this problem, the easier it will be to swallow.

post #23 of 47
From a legal standpoint Samsung may have a good argument, if in fact jurors did ignore the judges instructions and relied on evidence not provided during the trial to reach their decision then a new trial would be in order. It would also put to rest the case once and for all. If Apple could win this round, what's to say they wouldn't win the next round! Let the games begin.
post #24 of 47
Can we expect a jury made from a bunch of 18 year olds with zero life experience to decide cases? This jury passed the screening of plaintive and defendant.
post #25 of 47
Originally Posted by AppleInsider View Post
Samsung requests new Apple trial on claims of jury misconduct

 

Wait, is this the first thought Samsung has ever had that wasn't copied from someone else? Apple hasn't ever claimed misconduct before… 

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #26 of 47

LMAO.

 

Sammy and Apple were *both* involved in jury selection. Sammy didn't get the result they wanted, so they blame the jury for doing exactly what was asked of them. There was no misconduct. Samsung's claim doesn't fall under misconduct. Procedurally, the jury acted as they were required. 

 

Sammy's such a glutton for punishment. 

post #27 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by RaptorOO7 View Post

From a legal standpoint Samsung may have a good argument, if in fact jurors did ignore the judges instructions and relied on evidence not provided during the trial to reach their decision then a new trial would be in order. It would also put to rest the case once and for all. If Apple could win this round, what's to say they wouldn't win the next round! Let the games begin.

First of all, there's no evidence that they ignored the judge's instructions and/or reached their decision on the basis of evidence not presented at trial. There are suspicions, but nothing more.

Second, Samsung's efforts at jury tampering (releasing information to the press that the court specifically disallowed) should bar them from making this claim even if there were evidence.

Finally, Samsung would have to show that not only did the jury ignore the judge's instructions, but that it was material - that is, that the decision would have been different otherwise. Given the jury's very rapid decision that Samsung was guilty, that would be difficult to do.

It is extremely difficult to get a new trial because you don't like the way the jury decided or because one juror used some of his own personal experience in the decision. They're SUPPOSED to think for themselves. It is very unlikely that this will go anywhere.
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
"I'm way over my head when it comes to technical issues like this"
Gatorguy 5/31/13
Reply
post #28 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post

 

Samsung's lawyers do a lot of stupid things, as evidenced by the "its just rectanglez" arguments they based their losing defense around. Every motion they file is a Hail Mary play.


Well, some of their motions have worked.

 

What did you expect - that Samsung would sign a check without fighting this? Would you?

post #29 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by sflocal View Post

Isn't this the same jury that Samsung had a hand in selecting?  Am I missing something?

Did Samsung's attorneys screw up AGAIN??!!

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by dcolley View Post

Samsung's dummy lawyers picked the jury what makes them think that they can do a better job the next time. Maybe they should hire some "C" players.

 

 

Quote:
Originally Posted by Quadra 610 View Post

LMAO.

 

Sammy and Apple were *both* involved in jury selection. Sammy didn't get the result they wanted, so they blame the jury for doing exactly what was asked of them. There was no misconduct. Samsung's claim doesn't fall under misconduct. Procedurally, the jury acted as they were required. 

 

Sammy's such a glutton for punishment. 

 

 

Jury selection is not jury rigging. The most judicious selection of jurors cannot foresee or prevent misconduct, because jury misconduct often results from misunderstanding rather than malice? If Apple had lost, they too might also have considered asking for a new trial based on jury misconduct, because that's what lawyers should always consider. Odds may be against Samsung getting its way but would any company simply sign a billion dollar check without a fight?

 

Samsung seriously erred in judgement in emulating Apple design. Their legal defense, looking from outside, seemed weak (but frankly I didn't think Apple lawyers presented the best possible case either). However, asking for a new trial is necessary tactic, even if the odds are not on their side. It's silly, pointless and uninformed to expect anything else, or to mock them for trying.


Edited by Harbinger - 9/25/12 at 8:26am
post #30 of 47

This is nothing more than a legal maneuver to try to get public sympathy for "poor innocent Samsung" from that "big mean Apple".  No different than when their legal team leaked documents to the press during the trial, after the judge explicitly forbade it.

 

But, hey, it's all billable hours, that's the important thing, right?

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #31 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

This is nothing more than a legal maneuver to try to get public sympathy for "poor innocent Samsung" from that "big mean Apple".  No different than when their legal team leaked documents to the press during the trial, after the judge explicitly forbade it.

 

But, hey, it's all billable hours, that's the important thing, right?


It's a legal maneuver indeed but not to get public sympathy. They don't want to pay. It's that simple. Why can't anyone here understand that? How many companies would roll over and sign a billion dollar check and stop shipping their products without fighting to the last legal maneuver?

post #32 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger View Post


It's a legal maneuver indeed but not to get public sympathy. They don't want to pay. It's that simple. Why can't anyone here understand that? How many companies would roll over and sign a billion dollar check and stop shipping their products without fighting to the last legal maneuver?

 

Companies?  I think the word you're looking for is chaebol.

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #33 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

 

Companies?  I think the word you're looking for is chaebol.


That's irrelevant. Would Microsoft, Apple, Google, Oracle, GE, Nokia, ... pay up if they lost a similar case with a similar penalty?

post #34 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger View Post


It's a legal maneuver indeed but not to get public sympathy. They don't want to pay. It's that simple. Why can't anyone here understand that? How many companies would roll over and sign a billion dollar check and stop shipping their products without fighting to the last legal maneuver?

 

Hey Captain Obvious, you make yourself look intellectually stunted [real small] by prefacing your comment with, ``Why can't anyone understand that?'' because we actually all ``understand it.''

 

The point of my comment was to place your bets. Trial or No Trial.

post #35 of 47

As further punishment, Samsung should be forced to make a movie as embarrassing, pathetic, and detrimental to the message it intends to send as this one:

 

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply

Originally Posted by Marvin

The only thing more insecure than Android’s OS is its userbase.
Reply
post #36 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

As further punishment, Samsung should be forced to make a movie as embarrassing, pathetic, and detrimental to the message it intends to send as this one:

 

 

They're making fracking *music* *videos* at RIM!?!  Is that why BB10 is so late?!?

 

(Personally, I think they should've done "You're So Vain" instead...)

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply

   Apple develops an improved programming language.  Google copied Java.  Everything you need to know, right there.

 

    AT&T believes their LTE coverage is adequate

Reply
post #37 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by John.B View Post

They're making fracking *music* *videos* at RIM!?!  Is that why BB10 is so late?!?

(Personally, I think they should've done "You're So Vain" instead...)

It's really sad. Have these waste of time and effort ever bode well for a company, including Apple?

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply

"The real haunted empire?  It's the New York Times." ~SockRolid

"There is no rule that says the best phones must have the largest screen." ~RoundaboutNow

Reply
post #38 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post

As further punishment, Samsung should be forced to make a movie as embarrassing, pathetic, and detrimental to the message it intends to send as this one:

 

The charisma is overwhelming.

post #39 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdriftmeyer View Post

 

Hey Captain Obvious, you make yourself look intellectually stunted [real small] by prefacing your comment with, ``Why can't anyone understand that?'' because we actually all ``understand it.''

 

The point of my comment was to place your bets. Trial or No Trial.


Did I comment on your comment? I don't think so. And I most certainly do not believe *all* understand it. Somehow, I don't think you believe that either.

 

Call me stupid, but I actually believe my level of intellect is not affected by how it appears to you. Sorry to learn that you need to include such meaningful invective to add weight to your "bet", particularly since I wasn't addressing you. How might your intellect appear when you have to be so defensive, eh? But remember, appearance matters not :)

 

BTW, "stunted" ≠ "really small"


Edited by Harbinger - 9/25/12 at 2:46pm
post #40 of 47
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harbinger View Post


Well, some of their motions have worked.

What did you expect - that Samsung would sign a check without fighting this? Would you?

Lawyers are paid to fight, but I won't praise them for their tactics.

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply

"Apple should pull the plug on the iPhone."

John C. Dvorak, 2007
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Discussion
AppleInsider › Forums › General › General Discussion › Samsung requests new Apple trial on claims of jury misconduct