A U.S. judge has denied Samsung's bid to be granted a new trial against Apple over the latter's $1 billion court case victory back in August, with the former being told it should have carried out more work during jury questioning.
The South Korean electronics giant pointed towards the jury foreman's failure to disclose previous litigation with Seagate Technology, which is a company in which Samsung is a major investor, in addition to alleged bias showcased by statements made to the media after the verdict.
Samsung argued that Velvin Hogan should have revealed to the judge during jury selection that he had been sued by Seagate, one of his former employers, which led to his filing for personal bankruptcy in 1993.
"Samsung has a substantial strategic relationship with Seagate, which culminated last year in the publicized sale of a division to Seagate in a deal worth $1.375 billion, making Samsung the single largest direct shareholder of Seagate," the firm said in October. "Mr. Hogan's failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore in questioning."
Samsung also referred to statements Hogan made during a post-verdict interview with Reuters. He said to the media outlet that the "the jury 'wanted to send a message to the industry at large that patent infringing is not the right thing to do, not just Samsung,'" and that the "message [the jury] sent was not just a slap on the wrist."
In denying the request, the U.S. District Court judge presiding over the patent case, Lucy Koh, stated that Hogan's comments about legal standards utilized during deliberations were barred by federal evidence rules.
"Even if the standards related by Mr. Hogan were completely erroneous, those statements would still be barred, by Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) and cannot be considered in deciding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing," she explained.
Koh blamed Samsung for not asking Hogan the proper questions that may have revealed any alleged bias against Seagate.
"Samsung could have uncovered the Seagate lawsuit, or at least Mr. Hogan's feelings regarding Seagate, had it exercised reasonable diligence in questioning Mr. Hogan during its allotted time in voir dire," she said. "Moreover, even without asking Mr. Hogan directly, Samsung could have exercised reasonable diligence outside of trial and could have discovered the lawsuit by requesting the bankruptcy file, exactly as Samsung did later, when it became motivated to do so."
