Katie Marsal
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.
"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.
Amber Neely
Andrew Orr
William Gallagher
Christine McKee
AppleInsider Staff
Chip Loder
58 Comments
Great. Post-trial voir dire.
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.
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."
If Samsung had won, they would be defending Mr. Hogan, past and all. Make no mistake about it. It's only because they lost.
[quote name="Suddenly Newton" url="/t/154195/judge-to-review-samsungs-allegations-of-jury-misconduct-in-loss-to-apple#post_2230145"]If Samsung had won, they would be defending Mr. Hogan, past and all. Make no mistake about it. It's only because they lost.[/quote] And if Apple had lost many here would be condemning Mr. Hogan.