Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?
Android The Courts Apple

Samsung Accuses Foreman Hogan of Misrepresentation 208

sfcrazy writes "Samsung is clearly accusing Hogan in its recent filing of influencing the jury in favor of Apple. Samsung said in its filing: 'Mr. Hogan's own statements to the media suffice if such a showing is required. Once inside the jury room, Mr. Hogan acted as a "de facto technical expert" who touted his high-tech experience to bring the divided jury together. Contrary to this Court's instructions, he told other jurors incorrectly that an accused device infringes a utility patent unless it is "entirely different"; that a prior art reference could not be invalidating unless that reference was "interchangeable"; and that invalidating prior art must be currently in use. He thus failed "to listen to the evidence, not to consider extrinsic facts, [and] to follow the judge's instructions."'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Samsung Accuses Foreman Hogan of Misrepresentation

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:26AM (#41980387)

    He did disclose the fact he was a patent owner. I don't believe Samsung is claiming he didn't.

  • Not so Fast (Score:4, Informative)

    by neokushan ( 932374 ) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:39AM (#41980439)

    IANAL, but I believe that a lot of what Hogan has said during post-trial interviews cannot actually be submitted to court as evidence? Or at least, the Judge can't use his statements to influence her decision on what to do with him. Can anyone clarify on this?

    The stuff about him being sued by Seagate is definitely grounds for a mistrial, though.

  • by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:50AM (#41980507) Journal

    He did disclose the fact he was a patent owner. I don't believe Samsung is claiming he didn't.

    Samsung is not claiming he didn't disclose his patent. They are claiming he was pro-patent in a crooked sort of way, by his own admission.

    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.

  • by jkrise ( 535370 ) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:55AM (#41980557) Journal

    However, during the jury selection the judge asked Hogan whether he was involved in any litigation, he answered correctly that he was involved in some litigation a few years ago, and the judge then forgot to ask him if he was involved in any other litigation.

    Please do not spout such bullshit. The judge asked everyone if they were EVER involved in any prior litigation. Hogan half-assedly replied that he was involved in 1 litigation; but conveniently and untruthfully left out the Seagate litigation. He claimed in an interview that he did not mention the Seagate litigation because it was more than 10 years past; and that the judge specified a 10-year past limit.

    Of course, Hogan was lying through his teeth, and deserves to get booted out; and pay for the cost of the retrial.

  • by iapetus ( 24050 ) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @11:56AM (#41980559) Homepage

    You need to read Samsung's reply, which is in the Groklaw article linked from the page. It answers all your points, and does it in a clear and definitive way. It also makes clear a lot of their other arguments, which you conveniently ignore here; that he indisputably failed to follow the judge's instructions, introducing inaccurate 'expert testimony' of his own that was wrong on just about every point of law that the jury ruled on. It's indisputable because he's been running his mouth off about it ever since.

  • Re:Not so Fast (Score:5, Informative)

    by reimero ( 194707 ) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @12:23PM (#41980897)

    Actually, juror statements after the fact CAN be called into question. While the Court and the litigating parties have no direct sway over what happens inside the deliberation chambers, if the jurors go on public record after the fact, that may cause grounds for further examination of the verdict. It's more accurate to say, what happens in the jury room may only be revealed by the jurors themselves - which they did, in this case. What makes this situation ironic is that Hogan blabbed about it and wouldn't shut up. Had his ego not demanded he talk to the press about it - a lot - and that he stand on his soapbox, Samsung would have had a far weaker argument of juror misconduct.

    The bar for proving juror misconduct is very high, and lawyers are usually reluctant to play that card. By going on the record to the media, Hogan is making Samsung's case much, much easier.

  • by iapetus ( 24050 ) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @12:39PM (#41981137) Homepage

    There were no such court instructions. The 10 years claim has been thoroughly debunked. Three cheers for transcripts! []

    THE COURT: Okay. Welcome back. Please take a seat. We had a few more departures in your absence. 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?

  • by reimero ( 194707 ) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @12:42PM (#41981173)

    I'm not a lawyer, but Groklaw answers a fair amount of this. I've also sat on a jury before, if that makes any difference.
    1. This is one of the points being argued. The gist of Samsung's arguments is that there is a legal standard that believes that a prospective juror under oath is to be believed unless there is reason not to believe. The threshold for breaching a prospective juror's privacy is much higher than that for breaching an interested party's. Jury selection is long and complicated as it is. When a juror says, "I was involved in 1 lawsuit involving XYZ" and there is no apparent need for follow-up on other suits, lawyers typically won't follow up. There is trust that jurors will be forthcoming, because they took an oath that they would be forthcoming.
    2. "Protected" is a complicated word. Basically, the Court issues instructions to the jury, and trusts that the jury will abide by those instructions. It requires an extraordinary level to prove that a jury acted outside the bounds of the Court's instructions. It's one thing if the jury's verdict doesn't jive with what the Court thinks it should be. It is another matter entirely when there is evidence of willful misconduct by a juror. Basically, if it can be demonstrated that a juror was willfully disregarding jury instructions or otherwise was acting as an "interested party", that juror could face sanction from the court, including the possibility of having to pay at least some of the costs. It essentially comes down to jury tampering. The bar for proving this is very high, but a juror's own words after the trial can be used against him or her.
    3. This is also a complicated question. Lawyers want to win, yes, but they also have a fairly rigorous set of legal ethics to which they must adhere. This is a civil trial, so they are not under the same burden a criminal prosecutor is. Apple doesn't need to make Samsung's case for Samsung. At the same time, anything they plan to introduce at trial needs to pass through Samsung first so that Samsung may object or present a defense. Cases like this have very few "Aha!" moments. They have TONS of filings, briefs, depositions, cross-depositions and so forth. The court's job is to make sure the trial is fair and that both sides get their say. That said, if Apple had prior knowledge of juror bias, they did have a legal obligation to make the Court aware of this bias.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @01:29PM (#41981731)

    In the US legal system, individuals do not press criminal charges. Only the state (via the Attorneys General) can do that.

    When a victim chooses "not to press charges" what they are really doing is refusing to testify against the suspect. The state still has full discretion as to whether charges will be pressed. Charges are often dropped because the victim's testimony is a large portion of the case.

  • by Jerry Atrick ( 2461566 ) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @01:30PM (#41981737)

    "due diligence would include seeing if his name was a party to a lawsuit"
    ...which doesn't work very well if the case records are no longer available to be found, as Samsung point out in their filings. The only reason anyone knows about the Seagate case is one lawyers personal recollection and Hogan incriminating himself, both occurring after the trial.

  • by backslashdot ( 95548 ) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @02:29PM (#41982555)

    A person (err, corporation) has the right to an impartial jury (see sixth amendment). If this guy was partial to patent holders, it means Samsung's right to a fair trial was infringed.

  • by MozeeToby ( 1163751 ) on Wednesday November 14, 2012 @02:39PM (#41982683)

    A) If he had answered "yes" to the strong feelings question, the next question would have been "How so?", this isn't a check the boxes test that they take and no one ever looks at.
    B) The attitude that Samsung takes issue with is one in which the patent holder is always right simply by virtue of being the patent holder. Patents are law, but that doesn't mean that every accusation made by a patent holder is valid.
    C) When you combine B with the influence he reportedly had over the jury during deliberations, you can easily get a situation where a case should be thrown out. Having what is for all intents and purposes a representative of one of the parties interests (since his overlap with theirs) in the jury room, interacting 1 on 1 with the other jurors, even in a position of authority over them (by virtue of being the jury foreman) is poisoning the pool.

    If Samsung con convincingly establish that this is what happened they absolutely have a valid case.

"Don't worry about people stealing your ideas. If your ideas are any good, you'll have to ram them down people's throats." -- Howard Aiken