Apple vs. Samsung - This Time It’s Jury Conduct & Frivolous Suits

| News

In case you thought the Apple vs. Samsung trial was over, last week Samsung asked for a new trial based on juror misconduct, and this week Apple countered with a response calling such claims "baseless" and "frivolous."

Apple and Samsung in the scales of justice

Apple vs. Samsung in the scales of justice might just be a perpetual motion machine

In late August, a jury awarded Apple a landslide victory and damages of over a billion dollars in its case against Samsung for patent infringement in the design of several of its smartphones. With injunction hearings set for December at this point it looked like the case might be out of the limelight for a short while.

According to Ars Technica, Samsung filed for a mistrial based on juror misconduct last week. TMO's Jim Tanous spotted the possible misconduct shortly after interviews with the jurors surfaced once the trial concluded.

It seems the jury foreman, Velvin Hogan, holds his own patent and may have shared his knowledge with other jurors. This would have introduced information not presented as part of the trial which would violate jury rules.

Apple countered with its own court filing calling Samsung's request "baseless" and "frivolous." It also accused Samsung of being hypocritical in that it asked to seal documents from public view yet attacked jurors and the judicial process in the media.

While not a complete response to Samsung's demand for a new trial, it does state Apple's objection to having documents sealed and preventing communication with jurors. It's likely the first of several legal maneuvers that will keep this case active for the foreseeable future.

Sign Up for the Newsletter

Join the TMO Express Daily Newsletter to get the latest Mac headlines in your e-mail every weekday.

6 Comments Leave Your Own

mhikl

Hey Julie, how are your musical skills. I sense a great operatic possibility here. Sort of a Madam Butterfly meets Der Rig des Nibelungen; it would be long and soppy and cover a lot of sins.

Bosco (Brad Hutchings)

Hogan also lied in voir dire by withholding information about a prior lawsuit and personal bankruptcy. Samsung is going to paint him as a crackpot with a screwball agenda who basically intimidated the other jurors instead of following instructions. He’s the legal equivalent of that ref who gave the Seahawks a touchdown.

TropicalCoder

“Samsung filed for a mistrial based on juror misconduct last week.”

It was based on a whole lot more than that. Juror misconduct was just the frosting on the cake, and even if considered as serious as it seems, the judge may still be reluctant to overturn the jury decision based on that.

Samsung’s entire motion for a judgement as a matter of law is based on Rule 59 among other things and can be read on Groklaw . (Google it). The article is entitled “Samsung Asks for JMOL, or New Trial and Remittitur - Says Apple v. Samsung Trial Was Not Fair; Jury Messed Up”.

“Rule 59 permits the Court to grant a new trial to prevent manifest unfairness. Here, the Court’s restraints on trial time, witnesses and exhibits were unprecedented for a patent case of this complexity and magnitude, and prevented Samsung from presenting a full and fair case in response to Apple’s many claims.”

Among Samsung’s many other concerns are:
No Reasonable Jury Could Find Infringement of Apple’s Design Patents
No Reasonable Jury Could Find Apple’s Design Patents Valid
No Reasonable Jury Could Find Apple’s Trade Dress Protectable
No Reasonable Jury Could Find Actionable and Willful Dilution
No Reasonable Jury Could Find Apple’s Utility Patents Valid
No Reasonable Jury Could Find Infringement Of Apple’s Utility Patents
The Record Lacks Sufficient Evidence To Support The Damages Verdict
The Damages Rest Upon An Incorrect Notice Date
and concludes: A NEW TRIAL SHOULD BE GRANTED IN THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE

Zsolt

In the interest of JUSTICE.

On the same page with Apple’s patent war…
Would the “iMhappy” support the justice if it declared invalid the rounded corner and the bezel around touchscreen patent?
Just ask…

Erez

Apple knew about this juror.

The verdict must be canceled and we will be free of apple at last

M-CAM

M-CAM called this in August…to learn more about Velvin Hogan’s erroneous actions, check out the Patently Obvious report entitled, “In the jury of the blind, Velvin Hogan is King”: http://www.bit.ly/Ru6z6q

 

Log-in to comment