Slashdot Mirror
Judge To Review Whether Foreman In Apple v. Samsung Hid Info
thomst writes "CNet's Greg Sandoval is reporting that Lucy Koh, the Federal judge in the Apple v. Samsung patent infringement case, is reviewing whether jury foreman Velvin Hogan failed to disclose his own patent suit v. Seagate during the jury selection process. Samsung, which lost the suit filed by Apple, has complained that Hogan's failure to disclose his own status as a former patent case plaintiff constituted misconduct serious enough to invalidate the jury's verdict in the case."
The judge herself has been widely perceived as having a bias.
"Ahh! I see you're in that indeterminate Schrodinger state where - oh, uh
So has Hurricane Sandy. Perception is not the issue.
Everything is better with chainsaws.
True but unlike an election or a hurricane, these patent lawsuits seem to last forever.
These comments are my own and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of my employer or colleagues...
She's blocked Samsung's evidence on technicalities all the way through. Samsung should have taken this elsewhere, Koh has proved to be suspiciously in favor of Apple at every turn.
Having sued or having been sued doesn't preclude you from jury duty at all.
Now, having sued or been sued by someone who is materially connected to the case at hand should preclude you from serving on that particular jury. Huge difference.
that really depends if your biased opinion differs from my biased opinion!
Samsung hasn't lost the suit filed by Apple. You lose the suit when a court enters judgement against you, and no judgement has yet been entered by the trial court in Apple v. Samsung. A jury verdict has been returned on which the trial court has not yet entered judgement; the judgement in the case might follow the jury verdict, or it might dispense with it. In fact, the entire issue over juror misconduct relates to one of the grounds on which the trial court is being urged not to enter a judgement which reflects the jury verdict, and, if it succeeds, Samsung will not lose the case. This is not an appeal of a case they have lost, it is part of the process of case in the original trial court prior to a judgement being issued.
Any improprietory or error Samsung (or Apple, for that matter) believes occurred in the trial court can be (and, rest assured, will be) raised on appeal. Until that, the trial court judge is responsible for the case.
Samsung hasn't lost the suit filed by Apple. You lose the suit when a court enters judgement against you, and no judgement has yet been entered by the trial court in Apple v. Samsung. A jury verdict has been returned on which the trial court has not yet entered judgement; the judgement in the case might follow the jury verdict, or it might dispense with it. In fact, the entire issue over juror misconduct relates to one of the grounds on which the trial court is being urged not to enter a judgement which reflects the jury verdict, and, if it succeeds, Samsung will not lose the case. This is not an appeal of a case they have lost, it is part of the process of case in the original trial court prior to a judgement being issued.
Well, I suppose loosing a suit is better than being slapped with one:
http://dilbert.com/strips/comic/2008-02-25/
Only to idiots, are orders laws.
-- Henning von Tresckow
Samsung pointed out in court papers that Seagate and Samsung have a "substantial strategic relationship." The litigation with Seagate led Hogan to file for personal bankruptcy in 1993.
So yeah, I'd understand if the man had a grudge against Seagate and Samsung (by extension, for being a business partner of Seagate).
Probably wanted to steal Apple's patented swipe-to-grill gesture.
The jury's verdict has been recorded. The motion for judgment as a matter of law is an attempt to have the original trial judge overturn the verdict as unsustainable. Basically the motion says that no reasonable jury could possibly come to this conclusion based on the evidence presented. These motions are hardly ever granted, and Samsung is probably looking past this decision and attempting to lay the groundwork for a successful appeal based on jury misconduct. Samsung is much more likely to prevail at the appellate level.
The issue that is under review is whether or not Hogan failed to fully disclose all the lawsuits he's been involved in. From TFA:
During voir dire, Hogan did disclose that he had been involved in litigation with a former partner when the judge asked him if he had ever been involved in litigation. Hogan has noted, in response to Samsung's allegations, that the judge didn't ask for a complete listing of all the lawsuits he had been involved with.
Emphasis mine.
I dug around for the transcript of the jury questioning and found it at Groklaw (PDF alert)
THE NEXT QUESTION IS, HAVE YOU OR A FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT, EITHER AS A PLAINTIFF, A DEFENDANT, OR AS A WITNESS?
Mr. Hogan went on the detail that he was involved in a lawsuit involving a former employee and ownership of code. He stopped there. So it seems to me that it's disingenuous at best to claim that the judge didn't request a full list.
Whether or not this is enough to overturn (or throw out) the verdict is unclear to me as IANAL.
With billions at stake, why didn't Samsung's lawyers know the background of every potential juror down to the name of their first cat?
If Slashdot were chemistry it would look like this:Cadaverine
Samsung owns 9.6% of Seagate
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
It's also about the Foreman bringing in other things into the Jury Room during deliberations that weren't part of the trial/judges instructions. IE the prior art must be interchangable to invalidate a patent (among other things, but to me this is a big one). Please see PJ's update at http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121109045047165
Since the cases he never fully disclosed involved patents, you can pretty much assume bias in a patent case and rescind the verdict, for reasons of tainted jury.
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
The question in the selection transcript was: "have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness? " ..and Hogan never disclosed being sued by Seagate. Seems like that would be all the judge needs to read.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Lucy Koh worked for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, through which she received Apple stock during their IPO.
Look, I'll agree she ran this trial like a "why can't we all just love Apple" circus. But when Apple issued it's IPO in 1980, Lucy (born in 1968) hadn't even hit puberty yet.
you know Occam's Razor, right
Something about 12 year old girls probably not holding large stock portfolios from clients of companies they'll work for 20 years later (2000-2002)?
I will repost what a well informed anonymous coward posted later in the thread...
The fanbois usually shout down anyone who brings it up, but I will (and will get shouted down):
Lucy Koh worked for Wilson Sonsini Goodrich & Rosati, through which she received Apple stock during their IPO. Some of the actions of the 'honorable' Koh were pretty nonsensical when you think the point is to uncover the truth: disallowing evidence of Samsung designs that predate the iPhone, injunctions against Samsung products right out of the gate. The injunctions themselves are pretty clear indications of bias as they were almost immediately overturned (reversed and remanded, which shows pretty bad on Koh IMO). And then the situation of all other cases in other countries' courts ruled Samsung did not infringe and, well, you know Occam's Razor, right?
When all you have is a hammer, every problem starts to look like a thumb.
Since the cases he never fully disclosed involved patents, you can pretty much assume bias in a patent case and rescind the verdict, for reasons of tainted jury.
From here:
According to Hogan, when Seagate hired him in the 1980s and he moved from Colorado to California, his new employer agreed to split the cost of paying off the mortgage on his Colorado home. But after Hogan was laid off in the early 1990s, he told us, Seagate claimed he owed the company that money. Hogan said he sued Seagate for fraud, Seagate countersued, and he ultimately declared personal bankruptcy to protect his house."
That suit against Seagate was over breach of contract and fraud, not patents.
That question doesn't request a full history, it doesn't even request an explanation. It asks a yes-or-no question.
The juror's behavior amounts to this, while in voir dire for a rape crime.
Judge: "Have you or any one close to you ever been charged with a sex crime?"
Juror: "-sigh- I was charged with indecency for peeing in a dumpster behind a school when I was 19."
And then not mentioning the rape charges 5 years later...
When a cop, auditor, or lawyer asks you a question - You give exactly enough information to answer the question, and not half a breath more.
The juror wasn't on trial nor was he being audited. He was being vetted as a juror. Not disclosing material information is a waste of everyone's time.
True, but that's the problem and the lie of omission.
If he had just said yes, then there could have been followup asking for full disclosure. But, since he said yes and then gave a followup immediately it would be natural for anyone to think that his followup was complete. Thus, he's guilty of omitting pertinent details that may have affected his standing.
Here's an example (only hypothetical):
Question: "Have you ever been arrested in Texas?"
My Answer: "Yes, I was detained for disorderly conduct but was acquitted"
Result: Most of the people hearing that would think that was all and go about their business.
The real story: The above is true, but I was also arrested for several other possibly relevant crimes.
What happens when they find out: a shit storm
Sure, the people doing the questioning failed to be exactly precise, but that doesn't mean I wasn't hiding something.
How about Samsung being sanctioned over email retention, despite retaining emails earlier than Apple, even though Apple knew early that legal action would ensue.
You want a link? Here: http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120729091631834
Now, fuck off.
Which is not the same thing as judgement being entered.
True.
Well, that's the dictionary definition of a judgement as a matter of law, but the actual Samsung motion isn't a simple JMOL, it is, strictly speaking, a motion for a judgement as a matter of law, new trial, and/or remittitur. The parts specifically seeking a JMOL as one of the alternative remedies necessarily -- because that's the standard for a JMOL -- argues that no result other than the judgement it seeks is proper under any reasonable view of the facts presented at trial. But the first part of that motion isn't seekign a JMOL with a new trial as an alternative remedy for the same error, its a straight-up request for a new trial based on jury misconduct, which isn't at all about what could be reasonably found based on the evidence presented, but arguing that jury misconduct warranting a new trial independently of what could or could not reasonably be concluded from the evidence presented at trial occurred and must result in a new trial unless one of the other elements of the motion supporting a JMOL is granted.
Which, if the granting of such motions were completely random, would justify the characterization of the case as one Samsung is likely to lose at trial, but still wouldn't justify the characterization of the case as one Samsung has already lost. Of course, granting of JMOL motions isn't random, so the overall frequency with which they are granted, standing on its own, doesn't even justify the "likely to lose" characterization, much less the "lost" characterization. Less abstractly, its worth noting that jurors hardly ever go bragging to the media about how they convinced the rest of the jury to use specific legal standards in coming to a verdict which were not the standards in the jury instructions after the verdict but before the process in the trial court is complete, which may have some significant relationship to the frequency with which motions of the type at issue here (motions for a new trial based on jury misconduct) are granted by trial courts.
Of course they are. Any litigant in a case of any importance is looking beyond the trial court decision and attempting to lay the groundwork for prevailing on claims at appeal before the case even gets to the point of trial. That's just fundamental trial practice. And on some of the parts of the motion for judgement as a matter of law, new trial, or remittur that address a JMOL in the narrow sense (i.e., other than the remittitur claims or the new trial issue relating to juror misconduct), which largely address legal questions on which they the trial court has already sided with the other side at least once, they probably are primarily building an appellate record. OTOH, on the issues which have not yet been addressed by the trial court -- such as the jury misconduct issue -- there is no justification for the claim that they aren't primarily interested in getting a favorable ruling by the trial court.
People refuse to see the deliberate nature of Samsung's behavior and legal maneuvering. Motorolla too for their FRAND abuse.
I'm torn on the Samsung issue. Motorola though, and FRAND? Apple was offered the chance to join the FRAND pool and get access for free if they would just cough up some of the patents they never should have been granted on the basis of obviousness and said no. Then they wanted to get the same kind of pricing members of the pool get, and Motorola said no. That's somehow wrong? I think not.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"