Samsung Asks Judge To Order A Retrial Against Apple After Complaint Of Jury Misconduct


Is Samsung clutching at straws?

Samsung has asked Judge Lucy Koh to throw out the patent infringement verdict that saw Apple awarded more than $1 billion in damages this summer and order a new trial. The Korean electronics giant claims that the foreman of the jury, 67-year-old Velvin Hogan, is guilty of misconduct after he failed to answer the court’s questions truthfully and did not disclose a potential conflict of interest.

Hogan was selected as jury foreman because he has “served on more juries and knew more about patents than anyone else in the jury room,” according to a Fortune report. But Samsung isn’t happy that Hogan was part of the jury at all.

Hogan, Samsung claims:

  • Didn’t tell the judge he had been sued in 1993 by Seagate, a company with close ties to Samsung and Samsung’s legal team
  • Didn’t disclose the personal bankruptcy he had to file as a result of that suit
  • Made public statements after the verdict that suggest he failed to answer the court’s questions truthfully in order to “secure a seat on the jury.”

But there’s a strong possibility Samsung’s complaint is going to gain any kind of traction. Fortune points to a quote from Habeas Assistance and Training (HAT), a website for defense attorneys, which reads:

“There is hostility from courts, prosecutors and former jurors towards investigators and attorneys inquiring into and raising potential acts of jury misconduct. Thus, these claims are often difficult to litigate and are frequently controversial, striking at the heart of the American system of justice.”

HAT maintains a database of successful jury misconduct cases, including the categories, and it seems Samsung’s charges against Hogan would be categorized as “Dishonesty on Voir Dire,” which is lying about or not disclosing a relationship with a defendant or prosecutor. So is Hogan’s decision not to disclose his previous relationship with Seagate a case of misconduct?

Certainly not, as Hogan explains, the court asked jurors to disclose any litigation they were involved in within the last ten years. Hogan did that, but his 1993 business with Seagate was well outside of that time frame.

Hogan told Bloomberg News: “Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time constraint, of course I would’ve disclosed that. I answered every question the judge asked me”

Hogan also noted that Samsung “had every opportunity to question me.”

With regards to Samsung’s claims that Hogan lied to get a seat on the jury, he says he’s willing to sweat to the jury that he had no intention of serving on the jury. Hogan had one vote opposing his selection as jury foreman, and that was cast against himself.

It seems Samsung may be clutching at straws to find a way out of this case. As Hogan suggests, it’s almost as if the company “let me in the jury just to have an excuse for a new trial if it didn’t go in their favor.”

Via: Fortune

  • stevehutch

    “With regards to Samsung’s claims that Hogan lied to get a seat on the jury, he says he’s willing to sweat to the jury…” I don’t think the jury would appreciate Hogan’s “sweat”… haha..

  • hanhothi

    Apple have not been doing very well in their patent war with Samsung in other countries, a fact not covered on CoM. They lost in the UK, Tokio and Germany recently. This case in the US was clearly so biased, it was not a fair trail. In view of Apple’s international prominence, it does not show the US Justice system in a good light at all for the rest of the world who are looking on. It also shows what a farce the US Patent system is.

  • shm224

    According to the court transcript, there was no such 10 year limit – Hogan made it up.

  • shm224

    Ha ha. If samsuck knew this, then why didn’t they ask for the guy to be excused? Why? Because they wanted this in case they lost, now want to claim foul. Talk about jury tampering. Samsuck. The company that bribes government officials, pays off suppliers to withhold components from its competitors, was explicitly told by google to not add stolen IP into its phones, and has been linked to major corruption in Korea. Yeah, I’d trust them? Go back to eating dogs and pumping out shit from the sweatshop in Korea. The Mafia of Asia.

    Because each side gets to toss out only 3 jury candidates? Hogan clearly knew that his past legal case with Seagate was a liability and he should have provided that information as requested. Instead, he played dumb hoping that nobody would ever find out about it. Even then, I don’t think Hogan’s past lawsuit would have mattered much, had not kept his mouth shut. He pretty much paraded around in a victory march (America #1! USA! Apple #1) after trial exposing to the world how he persuaded the jury to come to such a lopsided verdict.

  • RadTech5000

    I don’t think anyone is surprised Samsung is doing this, they are desperate for options at this point.