x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA

Jury foreman in Apple-Samsung patent case answers back

Posted: , by Alan F.

Tags :

Jury foreman in Apple-Samsung patent case answers back
Was this man biased against Samsung?

Was this man biased against Samsung?

Velvin Hogan, the jury foreman who was cited Thursday by Samsung as being biased and the reason why Samsung believes it should get a new patent trial against Apple, has commented on the allegations made by the giant Korean manufacturer. Samsung is a strategic partner and major shareholder with Seagate Technology. Hogan is a former employee of Seagate and was involved in a law suit with them after declaring bankruptcy in 1993. The problem, as Samsung sees it, is that this information was not disclosed to the court during voir dire when prospective jury members are questioned. Additionally, Hogan took command of the jury room during deliberations and allegedly applied incorrect legal standards when discussing the case with the other members of the jury.

In its filing requesting a new trial, Samsung says that Hogan's failure to disclose the Seagate connection to the court was an issue that Samsung should have been "able to explore" and suggested that Hogan lied in order to obtain a seat on the jury. In a phone interview conducted this week, Hogan said that he considered it "an honor" to have been selected for the jury because of his 40 years as an electrical engineer. As for his failure to disclose the bankruptcy and connection to Seagate, Hogan said that the questions asked him to go back ten years and all of those issues occurred out of that time frame. "I answered every question the judge asked me," Hogan said, adding that Samsung "had every opportunity to question me."  The 67 year-old also said that he was surprised that Samsung didn't know about his relationship with Seagate considering he has a relationship with an attorney from Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, the firm that represented Samsung in the law suit.

"It is very hard to get a jury verdict thrown out for juror misconduct. If he truthfully answered the questions he was asked, Samsung will have a hard time proving bias."-Mark Lemley, Stanford Law School professor
Hogan now wonders if Samsung let him stay on the jury so that they could have an excuse to ask for a new trial if they lost the first one. Stating that this was not the case, Samsung told the court that it did not learn about Hogan's lawsuit against Seagate until after the verdict. In its filing with the U.S. District Court, Samsung noted that Diane M. Doolittle, a partner in the Silicon Valley office of Quinn Emanuel, is married to Michael F. Grady, the lawyer who filed Hogan's complaint against Seagate. The breach of contract lawsuit revolved around a loan Seagate claims it made in the amount of $25,000 to Hogan.

During deliberations, other jurors admitted that Hogan used his knowledge of patent law to guide them through the process of obtaining a patent. He had worked with attorneys over seven years to obtain patents on his "video-compression software". With Hogan and the rest of the jury deciding to ignore all of the prior art testimony presented by Samsung, Apple was awarded $1.05 billion, a sum that still could be tripled by Judge Lucy Koh following a December 6th hearing. In the meantime, the judge will have to decide if Hogan's connections and his incorrect use of legal standards as alleged by Samsung, are enough to throw out the verdict and order a new trial. If Judge Koh refuses to side with Samsung, the Korean manufacturer will most likely head to appellate court with all of this information.

source: Bloomberg

80 Comments
  • Options
    Close





posted on 05 Oct 2012, 12:58 11

1. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


Prior art doesn't exist in this dispute. Samsung obviously and shamelessly copied Apple and got rich.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:04 35

3. darkdroid (Posts: 44; Member since: 13 Sep 2012)


ever heard of a fanboy ?

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:07 5

4. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


Yes, I hunt them. You can see captured fanboys on small red numbers with thumb down over my comment.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:08 25

5. doejon (Posts: 403; Member since: 31 Jul 2012)


same as apple copied braun design

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:09 30

6. Droiddoes (unregistered)


After apple obviously and shamelessly copied the LG Prada. Funny how you iDrones always forget or fail to mention that.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:10 3

8. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


I haven't see LG Prada revolutionized the Industry to be something that needed to be copied.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:15 2

10. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


There was a Braun smartphone and tablet back in 60's?

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:17 3

11. wolstenbeast (Posts: 25; Member since: 21 Sep 2012)


Baaaaa Humbug!

To Quote Charles d**kens!

The Jury was directed by the Judge to consider the prior art defense (the most commonly used defense in patent litigation), Hogan steered the jury away from considering this aspect of Samsung's defense. Whether this was maliciously done, or simply an act of unmitigated hubris on Hogan's behalf will always be a matter of speculation.
However, his comments re he answered all questions asked, is disingenuous at the very least, because all jurors were asked to fully disclose any information that may lead cause to doubt impartiality (standard jury briefing question).
If Hogan believes that his prior contact with Samsung's subsidiary, was not a factor himself, he was still oath bound to declare it and allow the litigants to argue his suitability as a juror.
Hogan is continuing to provide more and more ammunition to Samsung, every time he opens his mouth.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:19 13

12. Droiddoes (unregistered)


Doesn't matter. They were the first. That's like saying that because the Ford Model-T is laughable by todays standards that it was irrelevant and didn't revolutionize transportation.

Herpity-f*cking-DURR

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:21 5

13. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


Why didn't LG sue Apple?

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:21 10

14. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)


Prior art doesn't need to revolutionize an industry to be prior art. It just has to pre-date the other art.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:21 6

15. Jobes (Posts: 364; Member since: 27 Oct 2011)


So now something has to revolutionize the industry to be copied? I was unaware that is a prerequisite.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:33 18

18. tedkord (Posts: 13236; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


There was a Fiddler Tablet in the early 90s. Care to guess what present day tablet looks exactly like it?

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:34 2

19. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


No, it's a crime motif.

One does not simply copy anything. Only what is successful.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:34 1

20. tedkord (Posts: 13236; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)


It didn't matter if it revolutionized the industry, according to patent and trade dress law, if it resisted prior, future patents and trade dress are null.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:36 3

23. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


You just don't get it, do you?

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:44 18

25. shayan (Posts: 159; Member since: 09 Sep 2010)


becuase they are not evil, and they have common sense.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:47 11

26. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)


LG isn't Sammy. Why LG did or did not sue Apple is not material to Sammy's litigation with Apple.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:49 3

27. Droid_X_Doug (Posts: 5993; Member since: 22 Dec 2010)


It doesn't have to revolutionize an industry. The revolutionize an industry issue is just a red herring that AppleConspiracy is throwing out to confuse things.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:57 4

28. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5498; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


"Samsung obviously and shamelessly copied Apple and got rich."

Samsung was rich even before smartphones era.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 13:59 1

29. Jobes (Posts: 364; Member since: 27 Oct 2011)


So its impossible for Apple to have perhaps... "borrowed" design cues and look and feel of say.. an unsuccessful phone? Is it so far fetched to say Apple also borrowed from other companies design cues? I'm not trolling just curious. And not only "successful" things are copied.. id assume if its something someone liked then its worth copying. Apple might not have liked the OS on the phone but liked general style and took cues. Keep an open mind I am doing the same.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:00 2

30. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


Nokia was even richier.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:02 2

31. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5498; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


Your statement is only assumption. Maybe LG Prada doesn't revolutionized the Industry but that doesn't proves that LG Prada wasn't copied!

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:03 4

32. Aeires (unregistered)


Wow, what a closed minded statement. You should look up the word "copy" in the dictionary. It doesn't mention anything about the level of success the original has.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:04 6

33. Aeires (unregistered)


Irrelevant.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:09 15

34. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5498; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


Maybe LG is not in need. For example Nokia is one of the biggest mobile patents holder but Nokia doesn't sue everyone around. And believe Nokia has more reasonable patens than Apple's "rounded corners". If Nokia was in need, believe Nokia would find what to sue.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:11 2

35. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


iPhone is a natural continuation of Dieter Rams inspiration, a hybrid between retro style of Rams and Apple's design language nurtured and developed for years.

Final product came somewhat similar to LG Prada, but this was only due to the fact that basic shape was way too generic. Other than that, LG Prada is not even close in terms of design when we look on execution of final form.

Now, most people take this "generic" argument to say that Samsung also had generic shape, but this reduction is never what this trial was about. Samsung copied the fundamental visual structure od iPhone, the logic itself, not just basic shape. Arguments with "rounded rectangles" are childish at least.

After all, it all comes down to what institutiolized authority one has for proper judgment. I'm professional industrial designer specialized for Apple. And who are the general masses that blame Apple? Just people without skill in design and aesthetics, and especially without knowledge of US design patent system.

The jury made the right decision, everything else is just a legal procedure, wrongly or correctly conducted and executed, I don't care for final outcome.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:11 2

36. PhoneArenaUser (Posts: 5498; Member since: 05 Aug 2011)


"One does not simply copy anything. Only what is successful."

Based on assumptions.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:12 2

37. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


Based on knowledge.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 14:13 2

38. AppleConspiracy (Posts: 637; Member since: 18 Oct 2011)


Check one of my posts above this one.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories