Samsung Claims Jury Foreman Misconduct in Apple Patent Case, Wants a New Trial

Samsung owes Apple in the neighborhood of a billion dollars after a jury found the company guilty of copying the look and feel of Apple devices and running afoul of several design patents. The high profile trial was rarely without drama, often times at the dismay at Judge Lucy Koh, who warned both companies on numerous occasions to shape up and quit with the antics. The trial is over now, but as predicted, Samsung isn't done fighting. What's surprising is Samsung's strategy.

In a court filing, Samsung has requested a new trial due to jury misconduct. In particular, Samsung accuses a single juror of lying during the jury selection process.

"The jury foreman, Velvin Hogan, failed to answer truthfully during voir dire. Asked by the Court whether 'you or a family member or someone very close to you [has] ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?' he disclosed one such lawsuit but failed to disclose two others, including one in which he was sued by his former employer, Seagate, for breach of contract after he failed to repay a promissory note, and filed for personal bankruptcy six months later," Samsung wrote in the filing. "Samsung has a substantial strategic relationship with Seagate, which culminated last year in the publicized sale of a division to Seagate in a deal worth $1.375 billion, making Samsung the single largest direct shareholder of Seagate. The attorney who sued Mr. Hogan on Seagate’s behalf is the husband of a Quinn Emanuel partner. Mr. Hogan’s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore in questioning and that would have triggered a motion to strike for cause or a peremptory strike."


Samsung goes on to accuse Hogan of other shenanigans designed to secure a seat on the jury, including "self-reported conduct during the jury deliberations." In short, Samsung says Hogan lied about his past, potentially affecting the outcome of the trial, and thus wants a new one.

Hogan has a different story. In a phone interview with Businessweek, Hogan says the court instructed potential jurors to disclose any litigation they were involved in during the past 10 years, but says his 1993 bankruptcy and other litigation with Seagate didn't fall within that time frame.
Tags:  Samsung, Apple, Lawsuit, Trial
realneil 2 years ago

Can Apple win this twice? LOL!

3vi1 2 years ago

Nope. Not if the second trial is held more than 10 miles from their headquarters.

Wait... they could... they seriously could... but I predict that the damages will be so reduced that it's going to die off the radar. The only real winners from the current patent system are the lawyers.

MCaddick 2 years ago

The transcripts (available on groklaw) CLEARLY show that the question was NOT qualified with the 10 years thing. This guy blatantly lied, and is now lying AGAIN about lying.

mhenriday 2 years ago

Here a link to the Groklaw post. Fascinating reading on how a trial should not be conducted. The judgement should be reversed and Apple required to pay Samsung's court costs for both trials. But this is a hometown court, to which driving directions from Cupertino presumably can be found even using Apple maps, so one never knows....


rapid1 2 years ago

The thing about this is the rewards Samsung will have which are multiple in nature. First they can get it thrown out, second they can get it reduced and they have a billion dollar reward in that case directly, third they can get it declared by that the Jury was prejudiced and seeking a direct outcome which I would think this is the case of for this specific reasoning avenue. Either way the end result are all positive and with a billion dollar bounty attractive in any case. The biggest part is in the end the people who pay for this are Samsungs product consumers which in a very large way are Apples customers as well. SO in the end Apple through this punishes their own customers and looks bad in multiple ways (IE: as a monopoly and a strangler of innovation in the general sense) then also the longer this stays in the public eye the more Apple loses as well.

iTard 2 years ago

Excellent post!

However, I disagree with "the biggest part is in the end the people who pay for this are Samsung's product consumers, which are in a very large way Apple's customers as well".

Please do not forget Apple made its fortune upon the backs of Apple's customers ONLY.

Whereas, if the jury verdict were to stand, the $1.whatever billion plus Apple's greedy demand it be tripled, would ultimately be passed back on the backs of Apple customers ONLY. Why? Since Samsung manufactures all the single-sourced CPU for Apple. It is easy for the supplier to pass cost increases to their customer, in this specific case, Apple.

Bottom line is regardless of the verdict (which I find repugnant, a travesty of justice) the costs will be passed onto Apple ONLY and indirectly onto Apple's customers ONLY.

Ironic eh?

Oh, all this BS+RDF from Apple claiming they are the largest single customer of Samsung: The puny USD $10+ bn or so Apple purchases BEGS from Samsung in form of A4, A5, A5X and A6 CPUs + Retina displays (for the iPhone, iPad and MacBook Pro) merely represent less than 3% of Samsung's yearly revenues. Clearly, Samsung could not care less about Apple's business, as they are only snotty bitches causing too much trouble. Apparently, Apple has not learned: "Never bite the hand that feeds you". Way too much hubris in that company of crackpots.

And the cherry on top is found by Googling for Samsung profits on quarterly sales (3 months) of USD $46.8 billion dollars.

The stupidity of Apple. Thinking they could take on Samsung. Hype vs Substance. And should Samsung become annoyed at Apple, they can simply cut them off from any Samsung manufactured essential components. Who's jugular vein is exposed? Like I said: the stupidity of Apple.


The hardest tumble a man can make is to fall over his own bluff.
~ Ambrose Bierce, 1842-1914, American Author/Editor/Journalist

DHampton 2 years ago

While yes billions are at stake for these companys. So many of the lawsuits are frivolous or just digging hoping for money. We the taxpayers have to bear the brunt of court cost judge fees. I mean companys like apple have 100s of lawsuits out against other companys at a time. But they pay a small court fee in my state $50 dollars then they tie up a courtroom and a jury and judge and service staff for a year.

Really to stop this crap we should say ok taxpayers take 20% of winnings and if your case is found to be frivolous you have to pay for all court expenditures.

mhenriday 2 years ago

The silly season seems to have started again - Paul, Dave, someone else at HotHardware, could we get a «Report» button so that postings by the easily amused, like that of «ilee1206» immediately above, can be removed after proper review ?...


Post a Comment
or Register to comment