Samsung requests new Apple trial on claims of jury misconduct

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
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.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 49


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


     


    Samsung won't get a new trial.

  • Reply 2 of 49
    [INDENT][/INDENT]

    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.
  • Reply 3 of 49
    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.
  • Reply 4 of 49
    malaxmalax Posts: 1,598member


    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.

  • Reply 5 of 49
    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.
  • Reply 6 of 49


    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?

  • Reply 7 of 49
    john.bjohn.b Posts: 2,713member


    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.

  • Reply 8 of 49
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 4,013member


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



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

  • Reply 9 of 49


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

  • Reply 10 of 49
    Oh dear god.
  • Reply 11 of 49
    zunxzunx Posts: 620member
    The only misconduct here is that of Samsung. Innovate or pay!
  • Reply 12 of 49

    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.

  • Reply 13 of 49
    daharderdaharder Posts: 1,580member
    "[I]Some were not sure of how prior art could either render a patent acceptable or whether it could invalidate it[/I]" - 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
  • Reply 14 of 49

    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.

  • Reply 15 of 49
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member


    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.

  • Reply 16 of 49
    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)
  • Reply 17 of 49


    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.

  • Reply 18 of 49
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 18,261member

    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. 

  • Reply 19 of 49

    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.

  • Reply 20 of 49
    A desperate company represented by desperate lawyers covering their desperate a****.
Sign In or Register to comment.