Hogan ended up as jury foreman, a position he no doubt cherished and strove for, if you believe Samsung's turn of events. The Korean manufacturer is trying to convince the judge that Hogan had a vendetta against the company based on its relation to Hogan's former employer, Seagate Technology. The burden of proof is on Samsung to convince the judge that not only did the elderly inventor lie to the court through some omissions, but that his misconduct led to the verdict in favor of Apple. Considering that Hogan did put himself in the role of foreman and also taught the jury how the patent process works (albeit using incorrect legal theory), it would seem that he did have a big hand in determining the verdict although we will leave it to Judge Koh to make that determination.
wilfully infringed on a patent. More importantly to Samsung, Apple seeks permanent injunctions on the devices that infringed on Apple patents according to the jury. Samsung's response that Apple had allegedly licensed its multitouch OS to the competition led to a response from Apple that such licenses were rarely given and should not stand in the way of a permanent injunction.
The recent move by the patent office to declare Apple's '381 rubber-banding patent invalid has led Samsung to note that its actions to use '381 should no longer be considered a willful infringement since it was reasonable to expect the patent to be declared. According to FOSS Patents, this was the only patent that "Apple asserted" during the trial. A ruling by the judge in Sammy's favor would mean that the damage award would not be subject to being tripled.
We're sure the legal team for both sides are polishing up their legal knowledge, washing their legal briefs, and will be ready for whatever Judge Koh throws at them on December 6th.