Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Patents The Courts Apple Technology

Judge To Review Whether Foreman In Apple v. Samsung Hid Info 98

Posted by Soulskill
from the billion-dollar-voir-dire dept.
thomst writes "CNet's Greg Sandoval is reporting that Lucy Koh, the Federal judge in the Apple v. Samsung patent infringement case, is reviewing whether jury foreman Velvin Hogan failed to disclose his own patent suit v. Seagate during the jury selection process. Samsung, which lost the suit filed by Apple, has complained that Hogan's failure to disclose his own status as a former patent case plaintiff constituted misconduct serious enough to invalidate the jury's verdict in the case."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Judge To Review Whether Foreman In Apple v. Samsung Hid Info

Comments Filter:
  • The judge herself has been widely perceived as having a bias.
    • by Antipater (2053064) on Friday November 09, 2012 @11:45AM (#41932971)
      So has Hurricane Sandy. Perception is not the issue.
    • by GodInHell (258915)
      Not biased -- I'd say wrong here and there -- but wrong isn't the same as biased.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        that really depends if your biased opinion differs from my biased opinion!

      • by Tough Love (215404) on Friday November 09, 2012 @01:59PM (#41934431)

        I will repost what a well informed anonymous coward posted later in the thread...

        The fanbois usually shout down anyone who brings it up, but I will (and will get shouted down):

        Lucy Koh worked for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, through which she received Apple stock during their IPO. Some of the actions of the 'honorable' Koh were pretty nonsensical when you think the point is to uncover the truth: disallowing evidence of Samsung designs that predate the iPhone, injunctions against Samsung products right out of the gate. The injunctions themselves are pretty clear indications of bias as they were almost immediately overturned (reversed and remanded, which shows pretty bad on Koh IMO). And then the situation of all other cases in other countries' courts ruled Samsung did not infringe and, well, you know Occam's Razor, right?

    • The judge herself has been widely perceived as having a bias.

      Any improprietory or error Samsung (or Apple, for that matter) believes occurred in the trial court can be (and, rest assured, will be) raised on appeal. Until that, the trial court judge is responsible for the case.

    • by MrDoh! (71235)
      I'd still like to know the value of the Apple shares she owns (or as that's a sliding number atm, the amount she holds). Appears she worked for the company that handled Apple IP issues before, and received Apple stock. I think that shows a bias if true, so would like to know how much she holds.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 09, 2012 @11:50AM (#41933029)

    She's blocked Samsung's evidence on technicalities all the way through. Samsung should have taken this elsewhere, Koh has proved to be suspiciously in favor of Apple at every turn.

  • by DragonWriter (970822) on Friday November 09, 2012 @11:53AM (#41933065)

    Samsung, which lost the suit filed by Apple

    Samsung hasn't lost the suit filed by Apple. You lose the suit when a court enters judgement against you, and no judgement has yet been entered by the trial court in Apple v. Samsung. A jury verdict has been returned on which the trial court has not yet entered judgement; the judgement in the case might follow the jury verdict, or it might dispense with it. In fact, the entire issue over juror misconduct relates to one of the grounds on which the trial court is being urged not to enter a judgement which reflects the jury verdict, and, if it succeeds, Samsung will not lose the case. This is not an appeal of a case they have lost, it is part of the process of case in the original trial court prior to a judgement being issued.

    • by AikonMGB (1013995)

      No mod points right now, but thanks for the clarification.

    • Obligatory (Score:5, Funny)

      by Savage-Rabbit (308260) on Friday November 09, 2012 @11:59AM (#41933133)

      Samsung, which lost the suit filed by Apple

      Samsung hasn't lost the suit filed by Apple. You lose the suit when a court enters judgement against you, and no judgement has yet been entered by the trial court in Apple v. Samsung. A jury verdict has been returned on which the trial court has not yet entered judgement; the judgement in the case might follow the jury verdict, or it might dispense with it. In fact, the entire issue over juror misconduct relates to one of the grounds on which the trial court is being urged not to enter a judgement which reflects the jury verdict, and, if it succeeds, Samsung will not lose the case. This is not an appeal of a case they have lost, it is part of the process of case in the original trial court prior to a judgement being issued.

      Well, I suppose loosing a suit is better than being slapped with one:
      http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-02-25/ [dilbert.com]

    • Not entirely true (Score:4, Informative)

      by Andy Prough (2730467) on Friday November 09, 2012 @12:34PM (#41933491)
      The jury's verdict has been recorded. The motion for judgment as a matter of law is an attempt to have the original trial judge overturn the verdict as unsustainable. Basically the motion says that no reasonable jury could possibly come to this conclusion based on the evidence presented. These motions are hardly ever granted, and Samsung is probably looking past this decision and attempting to lay the groundwork for a successful appeal based on jury misconduct. Samsung is much more likely to prevail at the appellate level.
      • Samsung is much more likely to prevail at the appellate level.

        Because the appellate court might not be on the take?

        • Because reversals almost never occur at the trial court level. This type of thing is usually the province of the appellate courts.
          • Because reversals almost never occur at the trial court level. This type of thing is usually the province of the appellate courts.

            However this is a good chance for the perhaps-not-so-honorable Lucy Koh to dig herself a little deeper into judicial doo-doo by failing to attempt any remedial action for the jury foreman's rather obvious transgressions.

            • I think she might be able to get away with kicking the can down the road and letting the appellate court deal with it.
      • The jury's verdict has been recorded.

        Which is not the same thing as judgement being entered.

        The motion for judgment as a matter of law is an attempt to have the original trial judge overturn the verdict as unsustainable.

        True.

        Basically the motion says that no reasonable jury could possibly come to this conclusion based on the evidence presented.

        Well, that's the dictionary definition of a judgement as a matter of law, but the actual Samsung motion isn't a simple JMOL, it is, strictly speaking, a motio

        • I stand corrected - I did not read TFM, and obviously you did. If its not just a JMOL and includes a request for a new trial, Samsung would have a bit better chance based on the facts. I can't imagine the judge wants to put any more time into it though. From a logistics perspective, both sides are probably dealing with a very irritated judge by now.
    • by Guignol (159087)
      Thanks for those clarifications, it makes much more sense now
      Some video footage of the whole mess [youtu.be] for people needing some more clarifications about the subtleties of this trial
  • by jythie (914043)
    And order in the universe was (or will be) restored. Apple has a long and pathetic history of loosing lawsuits from both sides, a big victory like this left an imbalance that needed to be corrected.
  • Foreman (Score:5, Funny)

    by Ukab the Great (87152) on Friday November 09, 2012 @12:11PM (#41933249)

    Probably wanted to steal Apple's patented swipe-to-grill gesture.

  • by paiute (550198) on Friday November 09, 2012 @12:43PM (#41933583)
    With billions at stake, why didn't Samsung's lawyers know the background of every potential juror down to the name of their first cat?
    • by bws111 (1216812) on Friday November 09, 2012 @01:41PM (#41934211)

      If you were a potential juror, would you want such a thorough investigation (which you did not ask for or have any control over) on your life? And remember, the attorneys are officers of the court, so what you are really suggesting is that the government (court) thoroughly investigate you, just because you MIGHT be called on to perform your civic duty. No thanks.

    • With billions at stake, why didn't Samsung's lawyers know the background of every potential juror down to the name of their first cat?

      1. With billions at stake, why didn't Samsung's lawyer know the difference between an iPad and a Samsung tablet when held up in the air? (Very bad preparation and should never have happened to them).

      2. With billions at stake, you would know all this and then use it, if convenient, if the case goes against you.

      3. Does anyone seriously believe that someone would hold a grudge against some company for 19 years, and then extends the grudge against a company who buys up the remains of that company when the

      • by vux984 (928602) on Friday November 09, 2012 @02:49PM (#41934901)

        Does anyone seriously believe that someone would hold a grudge against some company for 19 years, and then extends the grudge against a company who buys up the remains of that company when they get in trouble?

        Not necessarily, but by failing to disclose this he hid the fact not only that he might have an unlikely grudge, but that he'd been involved in patent litigation before and therefore would be drawing on all kinds of legal experience and legal information that:

        a) may not be relevant today -- it was 20 years ago
        b) may have him drawing on information that wasn't in -this- case.

    • by MrDoh! (71235)
      It's possible they did, but they're also asking did Apple know as well...
  • by Formorian (1111751) on Friday November 09, 2012 @01:05PM (#41933831)

    It's also about the Foreman bringing in other things into the Jury Room during deliberations that weren't part of the trial/judges instructions. IE the prior art must be interchangable to invalidate a patent (among other things, but to me this is a big one). Please see PJ's update at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121109045047165 [groklaw.net]

  • I haven't followed much of this Apple vs. Samsung but this slide from a presentation caught my attention:

    The Tube Business in the ’20s
    [snip]
    Tube Shops’ Challenges
    Design around ~250 RCA triode patents
    – Enormously difficult task (Samsung vs Apple case)
    – RCA had shut down Sylvania’s tube business
    – Ordering materials difficult (Corning in NY)
    Hired locally (many hams); got resources from IT&T (French engineers)
    – Eitel, Litton collaborated with each ot

  • by sl4shd0rk (755837) on Friday November 09, 2012 @01:33PM (#41934127)

    The question in the selection transcript [groklaw.net] was: "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? " ..and Hogan never disclosed being sued by Seagate. Seems like that would be all the judge needs to read.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Tough Love (215404)

      The question in the selection transcript [groklaw.net] was: "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? " ..and Hogan never disclosed being sued by Seagate. Seems like that would be all the judge needs to read.

      A rational person would think so, wouldn't they? But this judge seems to be somehow special.

      • The question in the selection transcript [groklaw.net] was: "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? " ..and Hogan never disclosed being sued by Seagate. Seems like that would be all the judge needs to read.

        A rational person would think so, wouldn't they? But this judge seems to be somehow special.

        Apple spinmods are out in force, as is typical each time Apple gets caught [theinquirer.net]

    • by Solandri (704621)
      To be honest, reading the transcript it sounds like both the juror and the court got derailed by the specifics of his answer and forgot to follow up with any other lawsuits he was involved in. An understandable mistake.

      But if we follow the precedent Koh set by following the letter of the law and disallowing Samsung's evidence on a technicality, she's gonna have to dismiss this juror and hold a new trial on this technicality.

Recent investments will yield a slight profit.

Working...