Judge to review Samsung's allegations of jury misconduct in loss to Apple

Posted:
in General Discussion edited January 2014
A federal court has agreed to investigate whether the foreman of the jury in the Apple v. Samsung patent infringement suit concealed information during the jury selection process.

Judge Lucy Koh issued a filing this week to say she would "consider the questions" as to whether Velvin Hogan didn't disclose important information about his past, according to CNet. Samsung has complained that Hogan didn't disclose during jury selection that he was sued by his former employer, Seagate, which has a "substantial strategic relationship" with Samsung.

Samsung first lodged the complaint about Hogan in October. The Korean technology company asserted that Hogan, who filed for bankruptcy in 1993 because of his litigation with Seagate, may have colored the final verdict that went in Apple's favor.

Now, Koh will hold a hearing on Dec. 6 to determine whether Hogan concealed information, and whether that constituted misconduct among the jury.

Velvin Hogan

Apple v. Samsung jury foreman Velvin Hogan. | Source: bayarea.com


"An assessment of such issues is intertwined with the question of whether and when Apple had a duty to disclose the circumstances and timing of its discovery of information about the foreperson," Koh wrote in her filing.

Author Greg Sandoval noted that during voir dire in Apple v. Samsung, Hogan did, in fact, disclose that he had been involved in litigation with a former partner. The foreman also noted that the judge didn't ask for a complete listing of all lawsuits he's been involved in.

The jury ruled in August that Samsung had infringed on Apple's patented inventions. It awarded Apple nearly $1.05 billion in damages.
«13

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 58
    Great. Post-trial voir dire.
  • Reply 2 of 58
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,563member


    This will come to nothing. Samsung knew his past when they allowed him on the jury. The only one concealing anything was Samsung's lawyers, who kept this in their pocket, hoping to use it later, in the event of an adverse result.

     

  • Reply 3 of 58
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,817member


    It's not only his past that Samsung is attempting to call into question but his incorrect interpretations of the law and how it influenced the jury. I don't expect them to be successful, but they won't be accused of not trying.


     


    "Finally, Mr. Hogan’s self-reported conduct during the jury deliberations presents the “reasonable possibility” that extraneous material “could have affected the verdict.” Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 206 F.3d 900, 906 (9th Cir. 2000). In post-verdict interviews with the media, Mr. Hogan said that he told his fellow jurors an accused device infringes a design patent based on “look and feel” (Estrich Decl. Ex. N), that an accused device infringes a utility patent unless it is “entirely different” (id. Ex. M), that a prior art reference could not be invalidating unless that reference was “interchangeable” (id. Exs. L, N), and that invalidating prior art must be currently in use (id. Ex. O). These incorrect and extraneous legal standards had no place in the jury room.See Hard, 812 F.2d at 485; Gibson v. Clanon, 633 F.2d 851, 853, 855 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. Perkins, 748 F.2d 1519, 1530-33 (11th Cir. 1984); Casanas v. Yates, 2010 WL 3987333, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2010) (approving for cause dismissal where juror “was applying his experience to question the law, not using his experience to determine the facts”).


    For all these reasons, Mr. Hogan’s conduct during voir dire and jury deliberations must be fully examined in a hearing with all jurors and can be cured only by a grant of new trial."

  • Reply 4 of 58
    If Samsung had won, they would be defending Mr. Hogan, past and all. Make no mistake about it. It's only because they lost.
  • Reply 5 of 58
    dasanman69dasanman69 Posts: 12,972member
    If Samsung had won, they would be defending Mr. Hogan, past and all. Make no mistake about it. It's only because they lost.

    And if Apple had lost many here would be condemning Mr. Hogan.
  • Reply 6 of 58
    jkichlinejkichline Posts: 1,319member
    Velvin Hogan is a hero in my book. He was abused and bankrupted because of these large, corporations that think they can operate above the law. Kudos Mr. Hogan. Stand your ground. Karma's a bitch eh Samsung?
  • Reply 7 of 58
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 19,817member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Suddenly Newton View Post



    If Samsung had won, they would be defending Mr. Hogan, past and all. Make no mistake about it. It's only because they lost.


    Well of course. Do you know of instances where a winning defendant asked for a new trial due to juror misconduct? image

  • Reply 8 of 58
    taniwhataniwha Posts: 347member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jkichline View Post



    Velvin Hogan is a hero in my book. He was abused and bankrupted because of these large, corporations that think they can operate above the law. Kudos Mr. Hogan. Stand your ground. Karma's a bitch eh Samsung?


    That's really funny. Of course you're entirely right. Big corporations need to be made to understand that they are not above the law.


     


    The best example is Apple itself. Read this Judgement from the UK Court of Appeals. There are some real gems in it.

  • Reply 8 of 58
    taniwhataniwha Posts: 347member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by jkichline View Post



    Velvin Hogan is a hero in my book. He was abused and bankrupted because of these large, corporations that think they can operate above the law. Kudos Mr. Hogan. Stand your ground. Karma's a bitch eh Samsung?


    That's really funny. Of course you're entirely right. Big corporations need to be made to understand that they are not above the law.


     


    The best example is Apple itself. Read this Judgement from the UK Court of Appeals. There are some real gems in it.

  • Reply 10 of 58
    taniwhataniwha Posts: 347member


    UK Court of Appeals judgement on Apple: --->http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1430.html


     


    Its written in very clear, very precise and  very understandable english.

  • Reply 11 of 58
    jfc1138jfc1138 Posts: 3,090member


    That the court got it's robes all wadded up when Apple quoted them regarding relative "coolness"?

  • Reply 12 of 58


    Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post

    UK Court of Appeals judgement on Apple: --->http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1430.html


     


    Its written in very clear, very precise and  very understandable english.



     


    Your point being what? Samsung copied Apple. Period.

  • Reply 13 of 58
    hill60hill60 Posts: 6,989member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Taniwha View Post


    UK Court of Appeals judgement on Apple: --->http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWCA/Civ/2012/1430.html


     


    Its written in very clear, very precise and  very understandable english.



     


    Colin Birss in his judgement used the sentence "They are not as cool".


     


    What is the very clear, very precise legal definition of "cool"?


     


    Does it use the literal meaning of:- at a lower physical temperature?


     


    Was the Judge resorting to some sort of slang, which doesn't seem very professional at all.


     


    So not really "very understandable", at all.

  • Reply 14 of 58
    neo42neo42 Posts: 287member

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by Tallest Skil View Post


     


    Your point being what? Samsung copied Apple. Period.



     


    Hero Hogan(TM) came along and alone convinced the jury to not invalidate Apple's patent(s) based on his own misunderstanding of the law.  Period.  


     


    The potential grudge against Samsung could be a problem as well.

  • Reply 15 of 58


    Originally Posted by Neo42 View Post

    Hero Hogan(TM) came along and alone convinced the jury to not invalidate Apple's patent(s) based on his own misunderstanding of the law.  Period.  


     


    Except no, since that hasn't been ruled on and probably isn't the case anyway.

  • Reply 16 of 58
    taniwhataniwha Posts: 347member


    I hope you're not expecting me to engage you in a discussion. There is no point in wasting time on someone who steadfastly refuses to understand.


     


    The point is clear enough for anyone not blinded by prejudice. Apple is making itself into the laugh of the century. 


     


    Take a look at this article in Forbes: --> http://www.forbes.com/sites/timworstall/2012/11/09/english-court-fines-apple-over-the-samsung-apology/.


     


    I'd just like to make 2 points.


     


    1. Unlike the US, the british and european courts won't tolerate hubris. Being a smart-ass isn't going to work. That is a no-win game to play.


       but it seems that the Apple barristers are way smarter than you. They finally understood that it was time to stop playing childish games in a high court. They ate humble pie. You may also have noticed the warning .... Apple needs to be careful what they say in the UK in the future. It is extremely unusual for a court of appeal to say something like 


     


    "


     



    1. Finally I should mention the time for compliance. Mr Beloff, on instructions (presumably given with the authority of Apple) told us that "for technical reasons" Apple needed fourteen days to comply. I found that very disturbing: that it was beyond the technical abilities of Apple to make the minor changes required to own website in less time beggared belief. In end we gave it 48 hours which in itself I consider generous. We said the time could be extended by an application supported by an affidavit from a senior executive explaining the reasons why more was needed. In the event no such application was made. I hope that the lack of integrity involved in this incident is entirely atypical of Apple.


    "


     


    2.  It is absolutely insignificant what you or I might think about the rights and wrongs of the case. The fact is that a panel of senior judges laid down the law and issued a judgement. End of story. You may not like it, Apple may not like it. But that's not going to help you or Apple. Learn to live with it.


     


    Apple got what it deserved. They are damaging their reputation.


     


    You might like to consider that Apple is losing the "thermonuclear war" ... everywhere outside of the US, and in several courts in the US as well.


     


    Hubris is a costly habit. They may end up paying more than Steve Jobs expected.


     


    But it sure is entertaining. :-)

  • Reply 17 of 58
    What's funny is Hogan himself has publicly stated he thinks Samsung left him on the jury intentionally just for this possibility. Very smart man as he seems to understand a lot of what's really going on.

    What I want to know is what do the other jurors think? To me that's more important than what Hogan said. Even if he has bias, how did he convert all the other jurors to his way of thinking? Did he bully them, of did they agree with what he said because they honestly felt it was right?
  • Reply 18 of 58
    The outcome is not only determined by what information Hogan discussed, but what the jury instructions were, where Hogan got his information (if he did his own legal research, then the jury would be tainted), how the discussion actually went, the give and take within the jury room.

    I look forward to the hearing and learning more.
  • Reply 19 of 58


    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post

    What's funny is Hogan himself has publicly stated he thinks Samsung left him on the jury intentionally just for this possibility. Very smart man as he seems to understand a lot of what's really going on.


     


    That's what Samsung is really objecting to; him being smart enough to see through their pathetic ruse.

  • Reply 20 of 58

    Quote:

    Originally Posted by EricTheHalfBee View Post



    Even if he has bias, how did he convert all the other jurors to his way of thinking? Did he bully them, of did they agree with what he said because they honestly felt it was right?


     


    I doubt he needed to do much bullying.  I bet the jurors were practically begging him to lead them through all the legal jargon and technical mumbo jumbo discussed in the courtroom so that they could just be done with this and go home.

Sign In or Register to comment.