Samsung claims Apple patent verdict tainted by jury foreman

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-57524935-37/samsung-claims-apple-patent-verdict-tainted-by-jury-foreman/

by njx • 14 years ago

147 79 14 years ago

news.cnet.com

debacle3• 14 years ago

This Hogan fellow just keeps getting better and better.

ohashi• 14 years ago

For Samsung.

ChuckMcM2• 14 years ago

So folks who have been wondering since day one after the trial what Samsung was going to do, this seems to be the answer. Hard to prove that a jury tampered with itself, but if they can construct a plausible grudge motive, perhaps the judge will see it there way.

debacle3• 14 years ago

It's not hard to prove the jury tampered with itself if you have multiple accounts of jurors saying that the foreman tampered with the jury. I can't imagine any judge not being furious at the conduct of the foreman in this case.

ChuckMcM2• 14 years ago

On the contrary, it is quite difficult, the jury is expected to deliberate. If you look at how Samsung's lawyers have made their argument, they focus on how things "outside" the trial made it into the the jury deliberation room. This is a common theme in successful tampering arguments, that it is an external influence that is extra-judicial which has tainted the jury deliberation.

So the argument Samsung makes is that the Jury foreman manipulated the process with intent and premeditation and that tainted the process. They are trying to show that by showing that the foreman had a grudge (motive), and made an opportunity (perjured themselves during the voir dire) so he brought this extra-judicial plan into the courtroom and sprang it on an unsuspecting defendant (Samsung). Just being incompetent in following the judges instructions does not rise to the level of tampering or jury misconduct.

I find it amazing this guy (the foreman) talks to the press, clearly he loves the limelight, but man he isn't doing himself any favors.

blrgeek• 14 years ago

Actually it's not that hard in this case since it's not 'jury tampering' in this case - merely 'juror misconduct'. They don't need to show motive even, just that it happened.

The jury is not supposed to deliberate on matters of law - they are supposed to weigh the evidence and deliberate on the specific questions they have and the instructions they have. [added] What Juror's should/not do -- “was applying his experience to question the law, not using his experience to determine the facts”

For instance, they had specific instructions on what was patentable as a design patent, and what constituted 'prior art'. The jury cannot use a different definition of 'prior art' or deliberate on the definition of 'prior art', or use their previous legal experience to expand or explain 'prior art'. That would be considered jury misconduct.

This is why the jury is asked whether they can set aside their previous experience and deliberate using only the evidence and instructions for this case. Why is this necessary? Because matters of law could and do change, and are not for the jury to take a call on. [Not talking about jury nullification here].

politician3• 14 years ago

“was applying his experience to question the law, not using his experience to determine the facts”

If successful, this line of reasoning will have consequences for the doctrine of jury nullification.

Tycho• 14 years ago

It seemed to me like this is what the jury foreman did - he applied the law rather literally. When he said the fact that the Apple methods couldn't be invalidated by prior art because the old methods were incompatible with newer processors, as ludicrous as that sounds as an argument, it seemed to be a faithful interpretation of what they were told about the relevant laws.

nollidge• 14 years ago

More than a grudge motive, wouldn't that be straight-up perjury? If I remember my own experience correctly, we were under oath during jury selection.

redsparrow• 14 years ago

He claims that he was only asked about lawsuits from the previous 10 years but the Seagate lawsuit occurred in 1993 so he didn't feel obligated to mention it.

DanBC2• 14 years ago

Another article with some details of his case with Seagate

(http://newsandinsight.thomsonreuters.com/Legal/News/ViewNews...)

mih• 14 years ago

Groklaw's take on this http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770

vvhn• 14 years ago

Looking at Groklaw's overall coverage of this, you have to wonder if she and not Quinn Emanuel are Samsung's legal team :-)

macchina• 14 years ago

The lawyer who sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in 1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for Samsung.

Wow. Pretty bizarre coincidence, but I can't imagine Hogan was aware of this at trial.

Terretta3• 14 years ago

Groklaw coverage is a convenient place for the latest links, but their commentary is beyond biased. They attempt to color what you're about to read.

Here's a particularly obvious example:

Commentary:

Hogan did not mention the case brought against him by Seagate in voir dire, significantly enough, even though he was specifically asked by the judge, as were all the prospective jurors, to list all cases any of them was ever involved in as a witness or a party. Hogan told Reuters (see 2012 [PDF]) that he wasn't asked about all cases. But he was, as you can see for yourself in the transcript [PDF] of the voir dire.

No, Hogan was not "specifically asked ... to list all cases" according either Samsung's filing or the linked transcript.

At least Samsung's filing gets it right:

Asked by the Court whether “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?” he disclosed one such lawsuit but failed to disclose two others...

Sorry, Groklaw, Hogan was not "specifically" asked to "list all" cases. The actual question, including sentences before and after for context (all caps in transcript):

LET'S CONTINUE WITH THE QUESTIONS. THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS? LET'S SEE. ON THE FIRST ROW, WHO WOULD RAISE THEIR HAND TO THAT QUESTION? ALL RIGHT. LET'S GO TO MR. HOGAN.

The question "specifically" asks about the singular, "a lawsuit". Note the phrase "who would raise their hand to that?" It's a binary question.

At the time of the question, it wasn't about patents, it was to determine if jurors have encountered the court system as a participant, yes or no. The followup questions did drill into the nature of the case Hogan mentioned, but the judge didn't follow up further because that wasn't the purpose of the original question.

Skipping down in the transcript a bit, the judge tells us the purpose of the "have you been involved in a lawsuit" question:

WE'LL TALK FURTHER ABOUT WHO'S BEEN ON JURY DUTY, BUT THERE ARE DEFINITELY DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, STANDARDS OF PROOF IN DIFFERENT CASES, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE -- YOU ALL HAD CIVIL CASES, SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT YOU ALSO HAD, YOU KNOW, PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR?

This makes it clear the question wasn't how many cases the juror was involved in, but whether the juror had been exposed to concepts around rule of law in different types of cases. The judge continues:

AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT LATER ON, BUT IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF CASES, THERE MAY BE DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF PROOF, AND ALSO THE LAW MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE WHENEVER YOU WERE A LITIGANT. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BOTH MR. HOGAN, AND MS. ROUGIERI, THAT YOU WOULD APPLY THE LAW AS I INSTRUCT YOU AND NOT BASED ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW BASED ON YOUR OWN CASES.

So no, Hogan was responsive and accurate and the question was not asking for an itemized list of cases. It was to set up the point about standards of proof and judicial instructions.

kenjackson• 14 years ago

Can anyone point to the actual transcript where Hogan is asked if he has been part of another lawsuit. I want to really see if the 10 year clause is in there or not.

I frankly just don't trust Groklaw to accurately report this story.

JimmaDaRustla• 14 years ago

"I laid it out for them."

Terretta3• 14 years ago

Anyone who thinks that isn't how most juries go probably hasn't done much jury duty.

There's always someone who thinks they know what's going on, or who the others think knows what's going on.

That's why they get elected foreman.

ryanmolden• 14 years ago

As a counter point, on my grand jury only one or two people even wanted to be foreman, and neither were viewed as "knowing what they were talking about", since election happens on day one and no one really knows anyone else at that point. Civil cases may be different but I don't get the general impression lots of people are vying for the job. It may be a case of adverse selection: anyone angling to be foreman probably shouldn't be made foreman :)

praptak• 14 years ago

It is a bit scary. Maybe it was good back in the day of bar brawls and cattle raiding cases but in tech it just cannot work.

dnr• 14 years ago

"Foreman" has nothing to do with being an thought leader, they're just the person selected to interact directly with the judge. In the jury I was on, he also moderated the discussion when it got too heated. But he deliberately avoided giving his opinion until after everyone else had spoken and tried not to have any more influence than any other juror.

(That didn't keep the jury from making a decision I disagree with, but I certainly don't blame the foreman.)

pnathan• 14 years ago

Um, that didn't happen in my US jury experience. It was more of a "short straw" kind of thing.

I suppose a loudmouth could have gotten the foremanship though.

thrill2• 14 years ago

In the criminal trial I served on (rape, kidnapping, theft, assault with a deadly weapon), I was not elected to be jury foreman, but asked to by the judge. The duties were pretty minimally specified, but mostly to be the point of contact with the judge. During deliberations I would attempt to keep our one pontificator from droning on by asking him a question about something he'd just said and then asking others the same question so as to keep all involved, and also ll feeling as if they'd been involved, without pissing anyone off - unhappy people often make rash decisions.

zmmmmm• 14 years ago

That just underscores how important the process of jury selection is, and how potent it will be if Samsung can show that they did not get a fair chance to evaluate the jury through actions of others in the trial (they don't have to blame the foreman; they could blame the judge for not questioning him well enough).

w1ntermute• 14 years ago

This is a great first step, but it's going to be a long, hard battle from here on out. Any American jury is going to be biased against a foreign company when it comes to charges like this, one of the reasons why I feel that it should have been tried by judges, particularly considering the complex and technical nature of the subject matter.

wtvanhest• 14 years ago

Any American jury is going to be biased against a foreign company

I'm not sure if this is true. I don't think most American's see Apple as an Apple Pie type of American company. I could be wrong, but I have never heard anyone say, I bought an iPad because it is an American product.

I say this as someone who is probably more supportive of American companies and not really supportive of Apple at all, so maybe I have my own bias, but I don't think so.

randallu• 14 years ago

Mostly on the radio I hear about Apple and Chinese labor, so they seem like a multinational company more than an American company even though they do "command and control" from the US.

Also they don't employ a huge number of Americans compared to other large companies (and excluding retail they remain pretty small, esp. compared to Microsoft). Maybe the valley is different too, because a large proportion of the population are immigrants.

debacle3• 14 years ago

> Any American jury is going to be biased against a foreign company

I disagree with that statement. If you read the groklaw piece linked below, the jury was actually siding with Samsung before Hogan started practicing law.

taligent• 14 years ago

> Any American jury is going to be biased against a foreign company when it comes to charges like this.

Complete load of unsubstantiated, borderline xenophobic nonsense.

eco2• 14 years ago

Well, Apple did play the American company vs. foreign company card during the trial. Apple feels that it can carry some weight with the jury.

Freestyler_3• 14 years ago

So the jury got some instructions on how it works and then they got a test which they couldn't fail. They should have been examined on prior art cases.

OR of course no jury but judges instead.

sabret00the• 14 years ago

No shit Sherlock!

bitcartel• 14 years ago

So the question now is, when and how did the lawyer find out about Hogan's failure to disclose...

From Groklaw:

"Were you wondering how Samsung found out about the lawsuit that Hogan failed to mention in voir dire, the litigation between Seagate and Hogan that Samsung dug up? Apple was, as I'll show you.

You wouldn't believe it if it was in a movie script. The lawyer who sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in 1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for Samsung."

jfoutz• 14 years ago

I couldn't give you a comprehensive list of my wife's acquaintances from 20 years ago. I could name a few. But sometimes coincidences are just coincidental.

thechut• 14 years ago

I wonder how many members of the jury, including Hogan, owned iPhones?

hayksaakian• 14 years ago

If I remember correctly, he actually owned an android device Based on a bbc interview shortly after the trial

theycallmemorty• 14 years ago

Given the amount of money that goes into Juror Analysis in huge cases like this, is it possible Samsung knew about this all along and was keeping as an ace up their sleeve in case they lost?

thrill2• 14 years ago

I believe that is entirely possible, legal, and wise.

vidarh8• 14 years ago

It might be legal, but if found out it would almost certainly get their motion denied, which is why Apple aggressively pursued a statement from Samsung about whether or not they knew. As a result, Samsung has made a declaration they did not know, and so at this point if it later turns out they did now, they're in trouble.

eco2• 14 years ago

More wise would have been just to remove him from the jury during jury selection. Overturning a jury's decision is pretty rare.

caf• 14 years ago

In filing #2012 Samsung says this:

  3. In response to Samsung’s motion detailing Velvin Hogan’s failure
 to reveal his litigation with Seagate during voir dire and its impact on the
 integrity of the trial and the verdict, Apple demanded that Samsung
 disclose the timing of its knowledge regarding those facts. A true and
 correct copy of Apple’s email, along with further correspondence
 between counsel for the parties that resulted in Apple’s agreement that any
 such disclosures would not constitute a waiver of any privilege, is
 attached hereto as Exhibit A. By way of separate declaration,
 Samsung is confirming to Apple that it did not know of Mr. Hogan’s undisclosed
 litigation against Seagate until after the verdict. To date, Apple has not
 revealed whether it was aware of Mr. Hogan’s litigation against Seagate
 prior to the verdict or prior to Samsung’s Motion.

NegativeK• 14 years ago

According to Groklaw, Apple asked via email and Samsung has denied this in a filing.

"By way of separate declaration, Samsung is confirming to Apple that it did not know of Mr. Hogan’s undisclosed litigation against Seagate until after the verdict." --Samsung, #2012

http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770

DigitalSea• 14 years ago

This changes everything. Even if it wasn't intentional, the very fact the foreman didn't reveal he was sued by Seagate is a dramatic blow to this case (not that it was much of a case to begin with). I'm neither a fan-boy of either companies, but fair is fair and I believe the case has been heavily one-sided from the start in favor of Apple so it's good to see the corrupt wrongdoings in this case are coming to light.

If this case isn't thrown out, I will be very surprised and disappointed in the US legal system. Can any law experts here weigh in on whether or not Apple can sue Samsung again if the case gets thrown out? Considering it's so high profile it would seem like that any jury would have the previous case on their mind and perhaps make a biased decision.

Samsung claims Apple patent verdict tainted by jury foreman

Related Stories