Last month we reported that Samsung was claiming that due to misconduct on the part of the jury foreman in the Apple vs Samsung case, the case should be thrown out. Apple has filed its official response with the court, claiming that if Samsung had an issue with the jury, they should have brought it up before the hearing began.
After Apple won a patent dispute against Samsung, leaving Samsung to pay just over $1 billion to Apple, Samsung claimed that jury foreman Velvin Hogan was biased against Samsung for a number of reasons. First, Hogan didn’t mention a 1993 bankruptcy filing. Second, Hogan failed to disclose the fact that he was sued by Seagate, his former employer.
That doesn’t sound like much, except that Samsung is Seagate’s largest single shareholder. It also turns out that Hogan’s bankruptcy came as a direct result of the Seagate suit. Additionally, while Hogan’s prior experience with patents was part of why he was selected for the jury, his opinions on patents could have lead him to a biased viewpoint. Hogan said that the court only requires potential jurors to mention litigation within the past 10 years, so he wasn’t required to disclose any of the matters mentioned.
The above claims from Samsung may all be legitimate, but that isn’t what Apple is arguing. Apple’s response is mainly that if Samsung had wanted to investigate Hogan for possible bias, the time to do that was before the trial had started. Apple is saying that Samsung’s right to investigate such issues was waived because it is possible or even likely that Samsung was aware of Hogan’s past, but declined to investigate further until after it had lost the case.
Ultimately, the decision of whether Samsung’s claims are acted upon or not rests with Judge Lucy Koh. No matter what is decided, it is likely that this is all going to get more complicated before it is resolved.
Do you think that Hogan was indeed biased against Samsung? Could this just be a last ditch attempt to get the case thrown out of court?
Like this post? Share it!
Apple is an ass. ‘Nuf said.
this is the kind of thing that fandroids would make fun of apple tards for if the situations were reversed. If apple lost a lawsuit to samsung then tried to say a juror was biased.
It would only be fair to consider that true if the Samsung worker had worked for Apple and wanted payback….
I’m a Fandroid as you call us. I would say if Samsung did rediculous things like apple is doing to Samsung in court over stuff like the bounce back feature and won. Then apple pulled something like this I would be for apple and against Samsung. I don’t like apple products that much but not until this case did I not like apple as a company. I don’t care how apple copied LG and takes android features and then google copied them I don’t give a crap, I just want a good product but I don’t agree with this Malicious lawsuit. If apple is so innovative then just out innovate Samsung. So I’m for Samsung in this case and I would be for apple had the situation turned. So don’t assume “fandroids” just hate apple we have our reasons and you have reasons to hate google.
The dude straight up lied to get on the jury for the Pay Back against Samsung and it’s so freaking obvious that’s what he did. But Apple claiming Samsung should have objected to him being picked to be on the jury in the first place? WTF? Maybe if the Hogan would have revealed these conflicts in the first place and hadn’t gone ahead and defied the Jury Instructions maybe!
But that didn’t happen and he’s lying through his Apple loving teeth saying, “the court only requires potential jurors to mention litigation within the past 10 years” is in total denial of the jury selection process! …..there is no 10yr limit. It’s “EVER”!!! ….and it only takes a read of the un-redacted testimony under questioning by the Judge to know that via Groklaw!
“you or a family member or someone very close to you [has] ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?”
COMPLETELY BIASED. Like Kyle Ray mentioned, the guy lied about everything. Lucy Koh really needs to step it up and act like a Judge.
Nobody knew until after the trial that the jury foreman was biased. He revealed all inn post trial interviews
“Ultimately, the decision of whether Samsung’s claims are acted upon or not rests with Judge Lucy Koh.”
Oh. I think everybody knows where this is going, then.
IT’s funny how the truth comes later up. And because Apple says it doesn’t matter it because they won 1B from Samsung. This case is never gonna stop.
The point that Samsung makes is not JUST that this one person was biased. The guy was the jury foreman, and as such, he used THAT position to influence the other people on the jury, and gave THEM incorrect instructions, and also was giving incorrect information to the others on the jury.
To Judge Lucy Koh,
Throw out Apple’s case and let innovation and competition carry on outside the court.