Samsung Accuses Foreman Hogan of Misrepresentation

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."'"

Samsung's accusations

[crazyjj]

They also allege [arstechnica.com] that Hogan has an old grunge against Samsung because they own part of Seagate (which had sued him into bankruptcy 20 years ago) and that he's a patent-owner himself (and very pro-patent)--neither fact he disclosed during the jury selection process.

Re:Well duh

[alostpacket]

I dunno about paying costs, that would leave him in RIAA-style life long debt. But a reasonable contempt of court fine could be justified -- though I don't know if that is legal. In many ways jury nullification is a positive thing, but in this case it seems to have swung the other way completely (assuming Samsung's accusations are true).

Re:Well duh

[michalk]

When this happened, I was mulling over my position on jury nullification, and came to the conclusion that it is an important tool as a limit on state power. However, in a civil case it gets a lot more difficult. We need a stable set of rules so we know where the boundaries are, otherwise we are no better than a third world country where graft is the norm. The problem is now that civil damages exceed what criminal damages can do to an individual, where do we draw the line? Do we say Jury nullification is okay to be used when excessive damages are awarded for file sharing? Okay, then why is that different than patent infringement? I like jury nullification. Unfortunately every time I've been in voir dire, and admitted to the ability to use it, I've been thrown out. For jury nullification to be a valid defense against the state (and corporation too?), it must be used properly. It doesn't feel to me like it was used properly in the Samsung/Apple case.

Who IS a lawyer here?

[paiute]

We need some real answers, not AC speculation.

1. Why didn't Samsung's lawyers know every detail about every potential juror? Is that not allowed in this court? Did each side not get to ask questions of each potential juror?
2. How much of the jury's actions are protected and how much are not?
3. Are Apple's lawyers required to share everything they find out about the case in their own digging with the opposition?

Re:Well duh

[TheGratefulNet]

next time I get called in, I will waste no time with the stupid voire dire. I'll just hand them a card that says 'no, I won't blindly follow any judge's instructions, I vote my concience and I fully support jury nullification.'

I bet I'll be allowed to leave in 5 minutes flat.

(I'd prefer to be allowed to use JN but they won't allow it, sigh)

Re:Who IS a lawyer here?

[Anonymous Coward]

Samsung's Laywers only knew as much about the Jurors as the Jurors themselves disclosed. Any further investigation of the Jurors could be considered jury tampering. More importantly, the Jury's actions are only protected if they are taken within the law. If a juror's actions are illegal, they have no protection.

Now, in this case I don't think that the Foreman's actions were necessarily illegal, and as such I doubt he can be prosecuted or sued for them, but they do raise a number of questions about the propriety of the verdict and damage award. My guess is that there are two things that could result from this:

1) The verdict could be overturned and a new trial ordered. At this point, the jury is irrevocably tainted and replacing the foreman with an alternate and re-deliberating is just not an option.
2) The foreman may be held in contempt by the judge - I'm not sure what legal grounds the judge actually has to do this, but I know that if the case ends up having to be retried because of the foreman's actions, it will SERIOUSLY piss off the judge. And if there's one thing you DON'T want to do, it's piss off a judge in their own courtroom.

I suspect that the verdict will be overturned, as it's becoming clear that there are compelling arguments that the law was not followed, and thus allowing it to stand will weaken the judicial system as a whole. What would be interesting is if the judge decides somehow that Apple should have known that the foreman was tainted and withheld that information from the court, and as a result the judge decides to not only overturn the verdict, but reverse it and find in favor of Samsung. I doubt that would stand up to an appeal though, so I expect that won't happen, but you never know...

Re:Samsung's accusations

[NatasRevol]

"provided false, misleading evidence" shows you don't know what those words mean.
"prior conflict with subsidiary of Samsung" years before it was a subsidiary of Samsung.

If you want him to be completely honest, at least do the same thing.

Re:Samsung's accusations

[BeeRockxs]

The court instructions are available online, and say nothing about more than 10 years. He's been lying to the press, too.

The juror is a minor part of the submission

[Maow]

Reading through Samsung's submission over at Groklaw, the whole juror misconduct is a rather minor part.

It goes on for pages about Apple's arguments during trial and disputes their claims, for example:

Apple’s attack on the legal standard for design patent infringement underscores the gaps in its evidence. First, the rule that “design patent infringement requires similarity so great as to deceive in purchasing” is not a “false premise” (Opp. 4) but rather the established standard for over a century. Gorham Mfg. Co. v. White, 81 U.S. 511, 528 (1871) (test is whether “the resemblance is such as to

5
deceive such an observer, inducing him to purchase one supposing it to be the other”). Apple’s authority confirms this. Crocs, Inc. v. ITC, 598 F.3d 1294, 1303-06 (Fed. Cir. 2010) (infringement found where accused products were likely to “cause market confusion”). Apple’s experts conceded that purchasers would not be confused. RT 1101:11-1102:8; 1103:2-1104:18; 1424:3-1425:22.

It goes on like this for pages and makes a very compelling argument.

Re:Very curiously...

[PortHaven]

Actually, my understanding was that after the case was over, and names of jurors were out in the public. The spouse of a lawyer recognized his name from a prior case. And that's what triggered the revelation...

So not sure how that wasn't answered?