Overly complex verdict questionnaire could confuse jury, judge says [u]Apple v. Samsung presiding Judge Lucy Koh on Monday voiced her opinion on the parties' tentative jury verdict forms, saying the 21-page document could confuse jurors with its complexity.
Update: Judge Koh late Monday released another draft of the verdict form (see bottom of article) to be discussed on Tuesday.
Apple and Samsung are still in the process of hammering out a final version of the form, but what they presented to Judge Koh on Monday may add another layer of unnecessary complexity to a case already loaded with technical patent minutiae.
According to in-court reports from CNET, Judge Koh herself admitted to being somewhat confused by the tentative verdict form.
"I am worried we might have a seriously confused jury here," Judge Koh said. "I have trouble understanding this, and I have spent a little more time with this than they have." She described the 21-page document as being "so complex, and there are so many pieces here."
The jurors will be tasked with deciding which patents, if any, were infringed upon by devices made by both companies. Apple is asserting three utility patents and four design patents against over 20 Samsung smartphones and tablets, while the Korean company is leveraging five utility patents against certain iPhone, iPad and iPod touch models.
"Looking at the verdict form, this is even more granular than anything Samsung has proposed," said Apple attorney Michael Jacobs, referring to the Korean company's proposed verdict form.
Closing arguments are scheduled for Tuesday, with each side having two hours to wrap up their case. Jury deliberations will begin soon after to be followed by a verdict that could come as soon as this week.
Updated Verdict Form
On Topic: patents
- Future iPhones might collect fingerprints, photos of thieves
- Apple-licensed iPod navigation patent invalidated by US regulatory agency
- Apple patent details visual-based AR navigation, confirms Flyby Media acquisition
- Apple awarded pair of 3D user interface patents related to computer vision
- Judge says 'common sense' not enough to invalidate patent in Arendi v. Apple & Google