Become a MacRumors Supporter for $25/year with no ads, private forums, and more!

MacRumors

macrumors bot
Original poster
Apr 12, 2001
55,041
17,424



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.
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.
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
 

BlueParadox

macrumors 6502
Sep 3, 2010
297
243
Melbourne, Australia
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! :eek:
 
Last edited:

H2SO4

macrumors 601
Nov 4, 2008
4,994
6,216
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:

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

macrumors 68000
Dec 24, 2001
1,520
1
Carson City, NV
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.
 

TMay

macrumors 68000
Dec 24, 2001
1,520
1
Carson City, NV
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

macrumors 601
Nov 4, 2008
4,994
6,216
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.
 
Last edited:

VulchR

macrumors 68030
Jun 8, 2009
2,610
12,659
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

macrumors 65816
Mar 24, 2004
1,031
0
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. :cool:
 

gnasher729

Suspended
Nov 25, 2005
17,980
5,555
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.
 

samcraig

macrumors P6
Jun 22, 2009
16,745
41,908
USA
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.