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This discussion has been archived.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 @12:59PM (#41933135)
    This is /. so you're not expected to RTFA (well, you're suppose to have missed it completely really), but from the TFA:

    Samsung pointed out in court papers that Seagate and Samsung have a "substantial strategic relationship." The litigation with Seagate led Hogan to file for personal bankruptcy in 1993.

    So yeah, I'd understand if the man had a grudge against Seagate and Samsung (by extension, for being a business partner of Seagate).

  • by sl4shd0rk ( 755837 ) on Friday November 09, 2012 @02:33PM (#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.

  • by vux984 ( 928602 ) on Friday November 09, 2012 @03:49PM (#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.

If all else fails, immortality can always be assured by spectacular error. -- John Kenneth Galbraith