Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in

Samsung Says Jury Foreman's History Marred Apple Verdict

By - Source: Bloomberg | B 41 comments

Velvin Hogan was sued by former employee Seagate, as well as a personal bankruptcy filing.

Samsung has requested the trial verdict which saw Apple being awarded $1 billion in damages be dismissed due to jury foreman Velvin Hogan's personal history.

Hogan failed to disclose to chief Judge Lucy Koh of a lawsuit from his former employer Seagate Technology as well as a personal bankruptcy filing from 1993. Based on the revelation, the Korean firm asked the trial be thrown out.

“Mr. Hogan’s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore,” Samsung stated. They also referred to Hogan's statements that were made to media outlets after the verdict; Samsung argues that it represents a sign that he didn't answer the court’s questions “truthfully” in order to “secure a seat on the jury.”

Samsung said its link with Seagate has been a "substantial strategic partnership," as well as referring to the fact that the lawyer who filed the complaint against Hogan nearly two decades ago is reportedly married to an attorney who works for Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, which is the law firm representing Samsung in their court battle against Apple.

Hogan, however, denied any misconduct to Bloomberg. He stressed that, due to the court's rule of potential jurors required to disclose prior involvement in litigation over the past decade, he didn't have to reveal his lawsuit with Seagate as it occurred more than 10 years ago.

“Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time constraint, of course I would’ve disclosed that,” Hogan added . “I’m willing to go in front of the judge to tell her that I had no intention of being on this jury, let alone withholding anything that would’ve allowed me to be excused.”

The jury elected Hogan particularly due to his experience as an electrical engineer. "I answered every question the judge asked me” and Samsung “had every opportunity to question me," Hogan stated.

Hogan expressed how he was surprised to find out that Samsung was not aware of the history found in Tuesday's filing. He questions if the company “let [him] in the jury just to have an excuse for a new trial if it didn’t go in their favor.”

If the $1 billion case does ultimately get dismissed, it'd certainly be a further blow to Apple's legal woes. Not only are they facing lawsuits such as the one pertaining to its Passbook app introduced in iOS 6, but they also recently lost their injunction against Samsung's Galaxy Tablet 10.1, with the device's U.S. sales ban subsequently lifted.

 

Contact Us for News Tips, Corrections and Feedback

Display 41 Comments.
This thread is closed for comments
Top Comments
  • 33 Hide
    Anonymous , October 4, 2012 5:01 PM
    Ragnar-Kon : The verdict itself was bogus, why shouldn't Samsung try to get out of paying it?
  • 30 Hide
    yarmock , October 4, 2012 4:53 PM
    Yes a conflict of interest is most certainly bogus.
  • 30 Hide
    silentbobdc , October 4, 2012 5:45 PM
    Actually if you've read some of the comments the foreman made about prior art, which go to the validity of the patents used to gain said judgement against Samsung, you'd see that his interpretation appears biased or at least flawed. His argument that the because the older hardware couldn't run the newer software without error meant that the new designs must infringe is retarded. Try running iOS6 on an old device and it won't work or will be severely crippled (on anything less than an iPhone4 many many features are disabled). Try running a new build of android on a first gen handset and that won't work either. Hardware and software develop very quickly, especially in the mobile space and arguing that because things weren't backward compatible it must infringe is moronic. Add that to the fact that they issued a judgement/award on a product the jury deemed to be non-infringing and his comments on how it had to be punitive to Samsung (which he later "clarified") and it shows a distinct bias on his part.

    My favorite quote from him was this:
    Quote:
    And so consequently, when we looked at the source code - I was able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the same, nor could they be interchangeable because the hardware that was involved between the old processor and the new processor - you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work.


    I didn't think advancements in processor architecture was the issue being debated. Also, nice of the guy with the bias to explain things to the rest of the jury by interpreting the source code for them. IF they needed that explained an impartial expert should have been requested with their testimony on the record for transparency. I'm pretty sure he wasn't qualified or called as an expert witness, although, at this point, it appears he could have been a full fledged member of the Apple legal team.
Other Comments
  • 30 Hide
    yarmock , October 4, 2012 4:53 PM
    Yes a conflict of interest is most certainly bogus.
  • 33 Hide
    Anonymous , October 4, 2012 5:01 PM
    Ragnar-Kon : The verdict itself was bogus, why shouldn't Samsung try to get out of paying it?
  • 20 Hide
    RADIO_ACTIVE , October 4, 2012 5:39 PM
    Ragnar-KonNot that I want to defend Apple... but now Samsung is just trying to find bogus reasons to avoid paying the $1 billion.

    Would you want to hand over $1 Billion dollars to Apple, let alone $1 hundred....
  • 30 Hide
    silentbobdc , October 4, 2012 5:45 PM
    Actually if you've read some of the comments the foreman made about prior art, which go to the validity of the patents used to gain said judgement against Samsung, you'd see that his interpretation appears biased or at least flawed. His argument that the because the older hardware couldn't run the newer software without error meant that the new designs must infringe is retarded. Try running iOS6 on an old device and it won't work or will be severely crippled (on anything less than an iPhone4 many many features are disabled). Try running a new build of android on a first gen handset and that won't work either. Hardware and software develop very quickly, especially in the mobile space and arguing that because things weren't backward compatible it must infringe is moronic. Add that to the fact that they issued a judgement/award on a product the jury deemed to be non-infringing and his comments on how it had to be punitive to Samsung (which he later "clarified") and it shows a distinct bias on his part.

    My favorite quote from him was this:
    Quote:
    And so consequently, when we looked at the source code - I was able to read source code - I showed the jurors that the two methods in software were not the same, nor could they be interchangeable because the hardware that was involved between the old processor and the new processor - you couldn't load the new software methodology in the old system and expect that it was going to work.


    I didn't think advancements in processor architecture was the issue being debated. Also, nice of the guy with the bias to explain things to the rest of the jury by interpreting the source code for them. IF they needed that explained an impartial expert should have been requested with their testimony on the record for transparency. I'm pretty sure he wasn't qualified or called as an expert witness, although, at this point, it appears he could have been a full fledged member of the Apple legal team.
  • -8 Hide
    ddpruitt , October 4, 2012 5:51 PM
    This is our justice system at work. If Samsung won originally it would have been the same article, the only difference being that the all the references to Samsung would have been replaced with Apple
  • 22 Hide
    cbfelterbush , October 4, 2012 6:01 PM
    The problem is that Apple should be sued, as they didn't create the tablet, nor design the first smartphone that looked like the iPhone. Apple has exploited the Patent system and wants to be paid for it, these lawsuits have nothing to do with ingenuity. Apple copied many sources to create their iPhone, they put it in a nice wrapper and it sold well, there is nothing especially unique about the iPhone.

    The fact is that Apple is not the source for the inspiration that made the iPhone a success. Not as they would have you believe anyhow.

    -CB
  • 22 Hide
    teh_chem , October 4, 2012 6:01 PM
    It was entertaining to see this guy's Q&A on tech sites explode into people bashing him for his obvious lack of grasp on technology, and his obvious bias because of his own experiences in patents and patent litigation.

    This is a legit concern to address, but I'd be shocked if this results in a verdict dismissal.
  • 21 Hide
    bllue , October 4, 2012 6:14 PM
    The jury was biased from the start. The majority of the jury were iSheepleTards who defended their beloved shepherd [Apple]. We need to put unbiased people in that jury seat who don't cheer for Apple.
  • 6 Hide
    f-14 , October 4, 2012 6:34 PM
    Quote:
    the lawyer who filed the complaint against Hogan nearly two decades ago is reportedly married to an attorney who works for .... the law firm representing Samsung in their court battle against Apple.


    maybe a bit of a reach unless the juror overheard or knew they were an item/married or saw their spouse in, around the courtroom or outside of the judicial building.
  • -5 Hide
    yarmock , October 4, 2012 6:51 PM
    f-14maybe a bit of a reach unless the juror overheard or knew they were an item/married or saw their spouse in, around the courtroom or outside of the judicial building.


    We cant help where these companies were originally founded. Not everything revolves around America. Now if they had originally been located in the US, THEN shipped off overseas, and kept selling stuff here I'm sure your argument would make some sense. But they didn't, and it doesn't.
  • 15 Hide
    jack99 , October 4, 2012 7:03 PM
    silentbobdcActually if you've read some of the comments the foreman made about prior art, which go to the validity of the patents used to gain said judgement against Samsung, you'd see that his interpretation appears biased or at least flawed. His argument that the because the older hardware couldn't run the newer software without error meant that the new designs must infringe is retarded. Try running iOS6 on an old device and it won't work or will be severely crippled (on anything less than an iPhone4 many many features are disabled). Try running a new build of android on a first gen handset and that won't work either. Hardware and software develop very quickly, especially in the mobile space and arguing that because things weren't backward compatible it must infringe is moronic. Add that to the fact that they issued a judgement/award on a product the jury deemed to be non-infringing and his comments on how it had to be punitive to Samsung (which he later "clarified") and it shows a distinct bias on his part. My favorite quote from him was this: I didn't think advancements in processor architecture was the issue being debated. Also, nice of the guy with the bias to explain things to the rest of the jury by interpreting the source code for them. IF they needed that explained an impartial expert should have been requested with their testimony on the record for transparency. I'm pretty sure he wasn't qualified or called as an expert witness, although, at this point, it appears he could have been a full fledged member of the Apple legal team.



    In other words, we had a juror who decided to substitute his own flawed understanding of the law and and even more grossly screwed up knowledge of technology with his own agenda.

    I'm all for the protection of inventions, but come on. You can't say "I think the verdict was correct based on current patent laws" without actually having read the important portions of the briefs, motions, and statutes.
  • -6 Hide
    wildkitten , October 4, 2012 7:20 PM
    jack99In other words, we had a juror who decided to substitute his own flawed understanding of the law and and even more grossly screwed up knowledge of technology with his own agenda.I'm all for the protection of inventions, but come on. You can't say "I think the verdict was correct based on current patent laws" without actually having read the important portions of the briefs, motions, and statutes.

    Yes, he brought some stupid arguments into the jury room. Problem is, Samsung isn't trying to get the verdict overturned because of them so I don't know why it keeps being brought up. If they were grounds to get the verdict overturned, than why did Samsung use 2 very weak points, the bankruptcy and the fact that the attorney who brought suit against him for Seagate is married to a lawyer in the firm representing Samsung.

    The problem is, the bankruptcy happened in 1993. If Hogan is right and he was only asked if he had a bankruptcy in the past 10 years, and in my personal experience with filling out forms, that is consistent to be asked only back to a certain date, then he did not lie.

    The bigger question is why did Samsung's attorneys not ask him technical questions during jury selection that likely would have brought these biases out before trial and they could have had him dismissed from the jury pool.
  • 12 Hide
    silentbobdc , October 4, 2012 7:27 PM
    From another site I found the following:
    Quote:
    Hogan, for his part, says there was no misconduct, contending that he was obligated only to tell the court of litigation in which he’d been involved in the past decade, and his spat with Seagate was far older than that. “Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time constraint, of course I would’ve disclosed that,” Hogan told Bloomberg. “I’m willing to go in front of the judge to tell her that I had no intention of being on this jury, let alone withholding anything that would’ve allowed me to be excused.”
    But as Groklaw notes, the transcript of Hogan’s voir dire makes no mention of that limited time frame.
    “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?”
    Sounds pretty open-ended to me.


    So this leaves us with 2 likely options. 1 - he didn't answer the question honestly to increase his chances of getting on the jury for some reason. 2 - they mis-transcribed the question and left out that important piece of information. I'll let you decide which you think is more likely. Why hide it if you have nothing to hide?
  • 4 Hide
    dalethepcman , October 4, 2012 7:30 PM
    What the readers here seem to not comprehend, (just like the media is hoping) is that these are by far the bottom of the barrel of issues, hand picked by the media corporations to attempt to sway the court of popular opinion to hating Samsung instead of hating Apple.

    Every internet source is quoting Bloomberg, but Bloomberg does not have a link to the court document that was submitted, nor is the document available online.

    This may be completely true and may be everything in the document, but without being able to support the claims with any kind of proof beyond "because we said so," this is just another rumor.
  • 16 Hide
    ven1ger , October 4, 2012 7:39 PM
    Check over at Groklaw and see the entire transcript of the jury selection, and what you'll find is that the jury foreman is lying about the 10 years. Judge never set imposed a time limit to her question. The juror lied and is now lying to hide his lies. Check the transcript, even another juror had mentioned a doctor's lawsuit that happened back in 1998, which is still over the so-called 10 year limit that Hogan lied about existing.

    Given the facts about his lying during jury selection, we can see now that he wanted to get into this jury and also misled the other jurors who thought he was more knowledgeable about patent laws than they were and not that he was biased.
Display more comments