Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!


Forgot your password?
Patents The Courts Apple Technology

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

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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday November 09, 2012 @12:50PM (#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 Anonymous Coward on Friday November 09, 2012 @12:50PM (#41933031)

    Having sued or having been sued doesn't preclude you from jury duty at all.

    Now, having sued or been sued by someone who is materially connected to the case at hand should preclude you from serving on that particular jury. Huge difference.

  • by DragonWriter ( 970822 ) on Friday November 09, 2012 @12:53PM (#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.

  • Not entirely true (Score:4, Informative)

    by Andy Prough ( 2730467 ) on Friday November 09, 2012 @01:34PM (#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.
  • by strength_of_10_men ( 967050 ) on Friday November 09, 2012 @01:37PM (#41933529)

    The issue that is under review is whether or not Hogan failed to fully disclose all the lawsuits he's been involved in. From TFA:

    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. 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.

    Emphasis mine.

    I dug around for the transcript of the jury questioning and found it at Groklaw (PDF alert) [groklaw.net]


    Mr. Hogan went on the detail that he was involved in a lawsuit involving a former employee and ownership of code. He stopped there. So it seems to me that it's disingenuous at best to claim that the judge didn't request a full list.

    Whether or not this is enough to overturn (or throw out) the verdict is unclear to me as IANAL.

  • by Formorian ( 1111751 ) on Friday November 09, 2012 @02:05PM (#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]

  • by Tough Love ( 215404 ) on Friday November 09, 2012 @02:59PM (#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?

  • Not true (Score:5, Informative)

    by Theaetetus ( 590071 ) <theaetetus DOT slashdot AT gmail DOT com> on Friday November 09, 2012 @03:21PM (#41934633) Homepage Journal

    Since the cases he never fully disclosed involved patents, you can pretty much assume bias in a patent case and rescind the verdict, for reasons of tainted jury.

    From here [thomsonreuters.com]:

    According to Hogan, when Seagate hired him in the 1980s and he moved from Colorado to California, his new employer agreed to split the cost of paying off the mortgage on his Colorado home. But after Hogan was laid off in the early 1990s, he told us, Seagate claimed he owed the company that money. Hogan said he sued Seagate for fraud, Seagate countersued, and he ultimately declared personal bankruptcy to protect his house."

    That suit against Seagate was over breach of contract and fraud, not patents.

Money can't buy love, but it improves your bargaining position. -- Christopher Marlowe