Judge Koh Denies Juror Misconduct Claim in Samsung v. Apple

MacRumors · Dec 18, 2012, 12:14 AM

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

HMI · Dec 18, 2012, 12:26 AM

And this was predictable when it was last reported.

komodrone · Dec 18, 2012, 12:31 AM

I'm almost out of popcorn.

iMikeT · Dec 18, 2012, 01:00 AM

What's next in Samsung's bag-o-tricks?

portishead · Dec 18, 2012, 01:11 AM

In before knightwrx typical comments about how this is unfair and Apple is a terrible company.

Renzatic · Dec 18, 2012, 01:20 AM

This is unfair and Apple is a terr...oh wait.

TheMacBookPro · Dec 18, 2012, 01:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by portishead

In before knightwrx typical comments about how this is unfair and Apple is a terrible company.

The truth hurts.

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

BlueParadox · 03:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMacBookPro

The truth hurts.

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

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!

BlueParadox · 03:33 AM

Seeing double

H2SO4 · Dec 18, 2012, 03:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlueParadox

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!

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.

TMay · Dec 18, 2012, 04:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2SO4

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.

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

H2SO4 · Dec 18, 2012, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMay

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

Get over what? You've lost me.

TMay · Dec 18, 2012, 04:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2SO4

Get over what? You've lost me.

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.

H2SO4 · 04:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TMay

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.

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

VulchR · Dec 18, 2012, 05:21 AM

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.

M-O · Dec 18, 2012, 05:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by iMikeT

What's next in Samsung's bag-o-tricks?

they plan to reinvent the television. it will be out about 4-6 months after Apple announces their big plans.

Technarchy · Dec 18, 2012, 06:07 AM

MacDav · Dec 18, 2012, 06:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2SO4

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.

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.

gnasher729 · Dec 18, 2012, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by H2SO4

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.

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.

MonkeySee.... · Dec 18, 2012, 06:36 AM

Good. **** you Samsung

Aluminum213 · Dec 18, 2012, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MonkeySee....

Good. **** you Samsung

You must be so happy as an apple executive

Oh wait

MonkeySee.... · Dec 18, 2012, 06:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aluminum213

You must be so happy as an apple executive

Oh wait

I'm not an Apple executive, silly.

Just massively dislike Samsung.

samcraig · Dec 18, 2012, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VulchR

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.

I'm pretty sure that's why Samsung filed the motion. Because they believed the foreman had too much power/didn't conduct themselves appropriately.

----------

Interesting what just happened in Europe re: Samsung v Apple

http://www.engadget.com/2012/12/18/s...against-apple/

Yujenisis · Dec 18, 2012, 07:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by M-O

they plan to reinvent the television. it will be out about 4-6 months after Apple announces their big plans.

Zing!

samcraig · Dec 18, 2012, 07:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yujenisis

Zing!

Meh - hardly a zing since Samsung's been producing TVs for years and Apple hasn't produced any (yet).

Dec 18, 2012, 01:11 AM	#5
portishead In Time-Out Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: los angeles	In before knightwrx typical comments about how this is unfair and Apple is a terrible company.
	24

Dec 18, 2012, 03:26 AM	#9
BlueParadox macrumors regular Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: Melbourne, Australia	Seeing double Last edited by BlueParadox; Dec 18, 2012 at 03:33 AM.
	0

Dec 18, 2012, 05:21 AM	#15
VulchR macrumors 65816 Join Date: Jun 2009 Location: 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. __________________ My first was a Mac+. Now I own an iPhone with 3.5x the pixels, a colour display, WiFi, 512x the RAM, >1500x the data storage, and 100x the speed. And it fits in the palm of my hand.
	1

Dec 18, 2012, 06:07 AM	#17
Technarchy macrumors 68020 Join Date: May 2012	__________________ Steve Jobs, January 9th 2007, 10:44am: "We filed for over 200 patents for all the inventions in iPhone and we intend to protect them."
	4

Dec 18, 2012, 06:36 AM	#20
MonkeySee.... macrumors 68040 Join Date: Sep 2010 Location: UK	Good. **** you Samsung __________________ If you’re busy making everything, how can you perfect anything? - Apple Always keep the rhythm in your feet and a little party in your shoulders. - Phil Dunphy
	1

Dec 18, 2012, 12:26 AM	#2
HMI macrumors 6502 Join Date: May 2012	And this was predictable when it was last reported.
	4

Dec 18, 2012, 12:31 AM	#3
komodrone macrumors 6502 Join Date: Apr 2011	I'm almost out of popcorn.
	9

Dec 18, 2012, 01:00 AM	#4
iMikeT macrumors 68020 Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: California	What's next in Samsung's bag-o-tricks?
	4

Dec 18, 2012, 01:20 AM	#6
Renzatic macrumors 601 Join Date: Aug 2011 Location: Android Fone Spy	This is unfair and Apple is a terr...oh wait.
	2

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode