dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
368
share rss forum feed

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1

More possible jurer bias in Apple v Samsung

»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012···ng-jury/

quote:
In a remarkable new post-trial motion, Samsung has laid out its strategy to get the $1.05 billion verdict against it kicked out. The boldest maneuver? A straightforward attack on the patent-owning jury foreman.

The Korean company hinted at this tactic in an earlier, redacted brief, but now it's been laid out in full, with more than a dozen exhibits attached showcasing Hogan's allegedly offending public statements. The company's lawyers have clearly had time now to comb through the multiple interviews foreman Velvin Hogan has offered since the trial in order to find the juiciest tidbits.

His legal misstatements have been picked apart by Samsung lawyers, who noted he said design patents are based on "look and feel," and that prior art must be "interchangeable" in order to invalidate a patent. "These incorrect and extraneous legal standards had no place in the jury room," wrote Samsung in its brief.

More significantly, the brief notes that Hogan disclosed being involved in only one lawsuit—failing to mention that he was sued by his former employer Seagate Technology, a company owned in part by Samsung. That lawsuit, which demanded Hogan pay back certain house payments that Seagate had assisted him with, ultimately caused Hogan and his wife to file for bankruptcy. "Mr. Hogan’s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore in questioning and that would have triggered a motion to strike for cause or a peremptory strike," write Samsung lawyers.

Samsung also suggests that Hogan didn't disclose how pro-patent he was when asked in court whether he had "strong feelings" about the US patent system. The new motion argues that Hogan's silence didn't sync up with his later statements to The Verge that "except for my family, it [jury service] was the high point of my career... you might even say my life," and that he wanted to be satisfied "that this trial was fair, and protected copyrights and intellectual property rights, no matter who they belonged to."

The company actually suggests that Hogan come back for an additional hearing with all the other jurors, because his "conduct during voir dire [jury selection] and jury deliberations must be fully examined." The only solution is a new trial, Samsung argues.

When asked yesterday about Samsung's new accusations of dishonesty, Hogan claimed he'd disclosed everything he should have. He told a Bloomberg reporter that the court's instructions required him to disclose litigation in the last 10 years, and he was sued by Seagate back in 1993. “Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time constraint, of course I would’ve disclosed that,” said Hogan, adding that “I answered every question the judge asked me... [Samsung] had every opportunity to question me."

In addition to the arguments about Hogan, Samsung has a lot of other post-trial arguments which seem pretty run-of-the-mill and probably have little chance of succeeding. For instance, Samsung argues that no reasonable jury could have found Apple's patents valid; but if the judge had seen a problem that big with Apple's case, she could have stopped the trial altogether.

Perhaps more realistically, Samsung also asks to sharply reduce the $1.05 billion in damages it has been slapped with. For example, Samsung argues the damages for design patent infringement should be dropped by more than 95%, since "just 5% of respondents to a J.D. Power study identify visual appeal as why they purchased a phone." Even on this front, though, Samsung's arguments are similar to ones already presented during trial.
This could burn Apple and burn them hard when the case loops around to an appeals court.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


burner50
Proud Union THUG
Premium
join:2002-06-05
Fort Worth, TX
kudos:1
said by Kearnstd:

»arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012···ng-jury/

quote:
In a remarkable new post-trial motion, Samsung has laid out its strategy to get the $1.05 billion verdict against it kicked out. The boldest maneuver? A straightforward attack on the patent-owning jury foreman.

The Korean company hinted at this tactic in an earlier, redacted brief, but now it's been laid out in full, with more than a dozen exhibits attached showcasing Hogan's allegedly offending public statements. The company's lawyers have clearly had time now to comb through the multiple interviews foreman Velvin Hogan has offered since the trial in order to find the juiciest tidbits.

His legal misstatements have been picked apart by Samsung lawyers, who noted he said design patents are based on "look and feel," and that prior art must be "interchangeable" in order to invalidate a patent. "These incorrect and extraneous legal standards had no place in the jury room," wrote Samsung in its brief.

More significantly, the brief notes that Hogan disclosed being involved in only one lawsuit—failing to mention that he was sued by his former employer Seagate Technology, a company owned in part by Samsung. That lawsuit, which demanded Hogan pay back certain house payments that Seagate had assisted him with, ultimately caused Hogan and his wife to file for bankruptcy. "Mr. Hogan’s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore in questioning and that would have triggered a motion to strike for cause or a peremptory strike," write Samsung lawyers.

Samsung also suggests that Hogan didn't disclose how pro-patent he was when asked in court whether he had "strong feelings" about the US patent system. The new motion argues that Hogan's silence didn't sync up with his later statements to The Verge that "except for my family, it [jury service] was the high point of my career... you might even say my life," and that he wanted to be satisfied "that this trial was fair, and protected copyrights and intellectual property rights, no matter who they belonged to."

The company actually suggests that Hogan come back for an additional hearing with all the other jurors, because his "conduct during voir dire [jury selection] and jury deliberations must be fully examined." The only solution is a new trial, Samsung argues.

When asked yesterday about Samsung's new accusations of dishonesty, Hogan claimed he'd disclosed everything he should have. He told a Bloomberg reporter that the court's instructions required him to disclose litigation in the last 10 years, and he was sued by Seagate back in 1993. “Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time constraint, of course I would’ve disclosed that,” said Hogan, adding that “I answered every question the judge asked me... [Samsung] had every opportunity to question me."

In addition to the arguments about Hogan, Samsung has a lot of other post-trial arguments which seem pretty run-of-the-mill and probably have little chance of succeeding. For instance, Samsung argues that no reasonable jury could have found Apple's patents valid; but if the judge had seen a problem that big with Apple's case, she could have stopped the trial altogether.

Perhaps more realistically, Samsung also asks to sharply reduce the $1.05 billion in damages it has been slapped with. For example, Samsung argues the damages for design patent infringement should be dropped by more than 95%, since "just 5% of respondents to a J.D. Power study identify visual appeal as why they purchased a phone." Even on this front, though, Samsung's arguments are similar to ones already presented during trial.
This could burn Apple and burn them hard when the case loops around to an appeals court.

Samsung allowed Apple to stack the jury with fanboi... This will bite Apple in the ass...
--
I'm tired of killing stupid people just trying to do my job and go home!


mob
On the next level..
Premium
join:2000-10-07
Reviews:
·SureWest Internet
said by burner50:

Samsung allowed Apple to stack the jury with fanboi... This will bite Apple in the ass...

Don't forget the "judge" was extremely biased in favor of the fruit company.
--
Ich habe kein Mitleid - Me
You're a daisy if you do. - Doc Holliday
And as always, have nice day.


FutureMon
Ach Du Lieber
Premium,ExMod 2002-05
join:2000-10-05
Seaside, CA
reply to Kearnstd
I brought this up in an earlier thread:

»Re: Apple admiting they can't compete?

said by FM :
I bet the whole thing is tossed due to the jurys disregard for prior art, and the foreman of the jury just happening to have a few patents of his own. He should have been dismissed from service when that became known.
Adding to that fact he actually got sued by them (in-part) it gets even more interesting.

- FM
--
Q: How many theoretical physicists specializing in general relativity does it take to change a light bulb?
A: Two. One to hold the bulb and one to rotate the universe.