Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Judge Koh Denies Juror Misconduct Claim in Samsung v. Apple

MacRumors

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
63,447
30,651



In a pair of court filings tonight, Judge Lucy Koh published a pair of decisions in Samsung v. Apple. The first filing (via The Verge) denied Samsung's motion for a new trial regarding alleged juror misconduct by jury foreman Velvin Hogan.

Samsung accused Hogan of withholding the fact that he had been involved in a lawsuit with Seagate, a partner of Samsung's. Judge Koh didn't agree, saying in her filing that Samsung's attorneys should have dug up the information.
Prior to the verdict, Samsung could have discovered Mr. Hogan's litigation with Seagate, had Samsung acted with reasonable diligence based on information Samsung acquired through voir dire, namely that Mr. Hogan stated during voir dire that he had worked for Seagate.
Click to expand...
velhogan.jpg
Judge Koh denied a second motion (via AppleInsider), this one filed by Apple, requesting a U.S. ban on certain Samsung products. The motion was denied because Apple was not harmed by Samsung infringing on the patents.
In sum, to the limited extent that Apple has been able to show that any of its harms were caused by Samsung's illegal conduct (in this case, only trade dress dilution), Apple has not established that the equities support an injunction. Accordingly, Apple's motion for a permanent injunction is DENIED.
Click to expand...
The decisions amount to more jousting in the ongoing legal drama between Samsung and Apple.

Article Link: Judge Koh Denies Juror Misconduct Claim in Samsung v. Apple
 
Article Link
https://www.macrumors.com/2012/12/18/judge-koh-denies-juror-misconduct-claim-in-samsung-v-apple/
BlueParadox

BlueParadox

macrumors 6502
Sep 3, 2010
306
331
Melbourne, Australia
TheMacBookPro said:
The truth hurts.

And don't twist this into some sort of pro-Samsung statement- it isn't.
Click to expand...

No need, as I'm not entirely sure what statement you're trying to make, with: "The truth hurts"? I really don't think the pro-Apple community & the like have much to worry about with useless statements such as this! :eek:
 
Last edited:
H

H2SO4

macrumors 603
Nov 4, 2008
5,649
6,938
BlueParadox said:
No need, as I'm not entirely sure what statement you're trying to make, with: "The truth hurts"? I really don't think the pro-Apple community & the like have much to worry about with useless statements such as this! :eek:
Click to expand...

Seriously, even if Apple turn out as the victor again the judge should make a new decision or at the least have a retrial at Apples expense if it can be shown that Apple knew about this conflict of interest.
 
T

TMay

macrumors 68000
Dec 24, 2001
1,520
1
Carson City, NV
H2SO4 said:
Seriously, even if Apple turn out as the victor again the judge should make a new decision or at the least have a retrial at Apples expense if it can be shown that Apple knew about this conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

Apple wouldn't have risked it.
No Evidence.
Settled legally.
Move on.
Seriously.
Get over it.
 
T

TMay

macrumors 68000
Dec 24, 2001
1,520
1
Carson City, NV
H2SO4 said:
Get over what? You've lost me.
Click to expand...

It is legally settled. Samsung didn't do due diligence when the juror noted that he had worked for Seagate, which Samsung owns.

Please note the original post:

"Prior to the verdict, Samsung could have discovered Mr. Hogan's litigation with Seagate, had Samsung acted with reasonable diligence based on information Samsung acquired through voir dire, namely that Mr. Hogan stated during voir dire that he had worked for Seagate."

Whatever Apple knew or didn't know, and I doubt that Apple would risk that, is forever irrelevant.
 
H

H2SO4

macrumors 603
Nov 4, 2008
5,649
6,938
TMay said:
It is legally settled. Samsung didn't do due diligence when the juror noted that he had worked for Seagate, which Samsung owns.

Please note the original post:

"Prior to the verdict, Samsung could have discovered Mr. Hogan's litigation with Seagate, had Samsung acted with reasonable diligence based on information Samsung acquired through voir dire, namely that Mr. Hogan stated during voir dire that he had worked for Seagate."

Whatever Apple knew or didn't know, and I doubt that Apple would risk that, is forever irrelevant.
Click to expand...

I was actually referring to the way you put your post. But cool it's covered now.
 
Last edited:
VulchR

VulchR

macrumors 68040
Jun 8, 2009
3,373
14,242
Scotland
Glad the judge did not overrule a jury - the whole point of a jury is that it prevents any one person from having too much power.
 
MacDav

MacDav

macrumors 65816
Mar 24, 2004
1,031
0
H2SO4 said:
Seriously, even if Apple turn out as the victor again the judge should make a new decision or at the least have a retrial at Apples expense if it can be shown that Apple knew about this conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

Jurors are selected by the attorneys representing both sides. Samsungs (grasping at straws) complaint is just sour grapes. ;) Whether this was a fair trial or not is above your pay grade. :cool:
 
gnasher729

gnasher729

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
17,980
5,565
H2SO4 said:
Seriously, even if Apple turn out as the victor again the judge should make a new decision or at the least have a retrial at Apples expense if it can be shown that Apple knew about this conflict of interest.
Click to expand...

What conflict of interest?

Samsung lost and was ordered to pay more than $1bn. In that situation it is quite natural that you grasp at the tiniest straws to get a one billion dollar decision against you overturned. Which is what they did. In reality, it is totally unreasonable to assume that a person would be influenced in a case against _Samsung_ by something that happened between him and _Seagate_ _19 years ago_.

Maybe you are a bit weird that way, but I don't spend any time thinking about things that happened 19 years ago.
 
S

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,779
41,982
USA
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom