Judge Will Review If Apple/Samsung Jury Foreman Withheld Pertinent Info
from the probably-not dept
After the jury decision in the Apple/Samsung patent fight in the US came out, lots of people pointed to statements from the foreman of the jury, Vel Hogan, that raised serious questions about Hogan's understanding of the legal issues at play, especially pertaining to prior art. It also suggested possible bias. Still, even with all of that, it's very, very difficult to get a jury ruling thrown out on jury misconduct -- but Samsung has unveiled one bit of info that Judge Lucy Koh has now agreed to review: whether or not Hogan needed to reveal that he had a legal dispute with Seagate, a former Hogan employer, who is also a major strategic partner of Samsung. Koh is also asking Apple's lawyers to reveal if they knew this info, which Samsung's lawyers did not.At the December 6, 2012 hearing, the Court will consider the questions of whether the jury foreperson concealed information during voir dire, whether any concealed information was material, and whether any concealment constituted misconduct. 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.While this is an interesting move, and worth watching, I doubt much will come out of it. Hogan did admit that he'd had legal issues in the past with a former employer, but no one delved into who or why.
During voir dire, Hogan did disclose that he had been involved in litigation with a former partner when the judge asked him if he had ever been involved in litigation.Again, most of this aspect is just a sideshow to the eventual long series of appeals that will come in this case -- and I doubt that the judge will find misconduct here. But just the fact that judge is considering it makes it worth following.
Hogan has noted, in response to Samsung's allegations, that the judge didn't ask for a complete listing of all the lawsuits he had been involved with.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: jury misconduct, patents, trial, vel hogan
Companies: apple, samsung
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"Bring your own expert to work" Day
As PJ pointed out at Groklaw, it doesn't give the opposing side a chance to challenge or rebut his arguments.
And from listening to Hogan and compatriots after the trial, Hogan really believes in his abilities - and so did the jury - over and above what was presented in the courtroom.
We will see what really happens with this, if anything, as the bar for jury misconduct is very high.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Bring your own expert to work" Day
If this judge has any respectability left, she'll definitely rule for jury bias.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Bring your own expert to work" Day
They basically boil down to "Are you a wannabe patent troll?".
The Seagate lawsuit nonsense is a sideshow, a distraction.
The real problem is that he had a Grade AAA prime cut conflict of interest. He has a vested interest in lowering the bar.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Bring your own expert to work" Day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "Bring your own expert to work" Day
The case should be tossed based upon this item alone, but what about the jury not even coming close to following the judges' orders? IIRC, the jury was given specific items to review, but the foreman decided they were not relevant.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "Bring your own expert to work" Day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "Bring your own expert to work" Day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: "Bring your own expert to work" Day
Perhaps our friend "Cosmo the God", aka "Fluffy IS Zuul", could correct this wrong.... and bring her down to the 99%-ER level, and book her a cardboard box at the Underpass Hotel... (°_(° °)_°)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: "Bring your own expert to work" Day
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I wish I did and who knows I might hit it big on the poor mans lotto aka scratch tickets. I sure could use that 5 grand jackpot. My black friend told me that's what is known as being N***** rich lol.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]