Samsung asks court to throw out $1.05 billion verdict, saying jury foreman was biased
According to fellow juror Manuel Llagan, Hogan took over the deliberations with his first hand knowledge of patents. Llagan said that Hogan explained the process of obtaining a patent to the rest of the jury. Samsung says that the 67 year-old Hogan used incorrect legal standards as he walked the jury through the case. Hogan refused to comment on the allegations, which Samsung says can only be cured through granting Samsung's request for a new trial.
Some legal experts have criticized the jury in the Apple-Samsung patent case for making the decision to ignore the testimony presented by Samsung showing that there was prior art involved with the design of the Apple iPhone. The prior art defense is commonly used by firms accused of infringing on patents.
1. networkdood posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:16 42 1
It was a sloppy and rushed trial. Neither Koh nor the jury wanted to sort through the entire evidence and ignored quite a bit of evidence that would have hurt APPLE....but this is no surprise.
11. Droid_X_Doug posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:34 17 2
All of which are valid points for the appeal brief. Koh doesn't want to re-do the trial, absent directions from the 9th circuit Court of Appeal. Nice try, Sammy, but your attorneys need to focus on their appeal brief.
22. ZEUS.the.thunder.god posted on 04 Oct 2012, 12:11 12 0
well there is a good chance for Sammy if their legal team do their homework. as much as i hate apple, i was not happy with sammy`s legal team. ask google hows it done.
58. Hemlocke posted on 04 Oct 2012, 17:00 0 0
They used the same firm Google uses.
30. jimjam posted on 04 Oct 2012, 12:56 21 1
Of course Koh doesn't want to redo the trial - she screwed up the first one
68. imsickwithphone (banned) posted on 04 Oct 2012, 19:14 3 0
SHAME ON YOU HOGAN
SHAME ON YOU
14. whysoserious posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:45 22 4
I knew there was something iFishy about the trial.
17. PAPINYC posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:49 12 1
Good Heavens, say it ain't so, an iMiStriAl.....?
39. lyndon420 posted on 04 Oct 2012, 13:31 11 3
Yes there was...apple won.
76. Mxyzptlk posted on 05 Oct 2012, 11:50 0 0
No that's called justice.
16. Mxyzptlk posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:49 3 38
I find the judgment to be fair. As I said before, if Samsung had just been more original in their designs instead of copying Apple then they wouldn't have been sued.
20. mahony posted on 04 Oct 2012, 12:06 14 1
Then what happens to Apple when they copy other companies? Have you not seen they way they copy Android and SONY phone designs?
59. Hemlocke posted on 04 Oct 2012, 17:01 0 1
Say what? Care to elaborate, since no Android phones precede the iPhone, nor do any Sony capacitive smartphones?
77. becton posted on 05 Oct 2012, 20:07 0 0
Sony capacitive phones did precede the iphone....the p900 (the phone the iphone design was stolen from) was released in 2003.
24. tedkord posted on 04 Oct 2012, 12:18 17 1
Nope, just one. You.
50. metalpoet (unregistered) posted on 04 Oct 2012, 16:10 3 0
Mxyzptlk, quit acting as if everything that everyone else does is wrong and apple is right. You think that people dont notice you on Phonearena hating everything that isnt apple, you have a massive biased torwards them and its plain to see. at least mask it somehow and give credit where its due. Sumsung is not the greatest company ever but they do make great cellphones!
52. ronjr123 posted on 04 Oct 2012, 16:15 1 0
28. BuckeyeCadet86 posted on 04 Oct 2012, 12:27 7 0
Whether you find it fair or not isn't the issue, the issue is about a juror who should not have been on the jury with a clear conflict of interest. This is more than enough to provide a mistrial, if Judge Koh doesn't then an appeals court will. Apple should have known this and requested to have him removed themselves, especially since they were convinced they were going to win.
62. Hemlocke posted on 04 Oct 2012, 17:37 0 0
Samsung had the same opportunities to have him removed.
35. willard12 posted on 04 Oct 2012, 13:08 9 0
So you don't think the f700 was an original design? In none of your comments do you acknowledge the other side. When apple copies...even to the point of pursuing the employees from Google, you think it's OK. Then you keep saying Samsung copied, even the the f700 that judge Koh blocked from trial, was released at the same time. I understand you are an Apple fan....but you can't comment on how much you hate copying while at the same time supporting the "great artists steal" company.
60. Hemlocke posted on 04 Oct 2012, 17:05 0 2
The F700 is a feature phone with a slide-out QWERTY keyboard and a resistive screen. Those things alone would be enough to render the F700 moot, but the fact that it came out AFTER the iPhone renders it an ignorant submission as evidence.
70. willard12 posted on 04 Oct 2012, 21:56 0 0
Apple didn't sue over feature phones, touch screens or keyboards. They sued over design...black square with rounded corners and a button centered. Therefore, your points are moot. That is exactly why Apple filed a motion to have the f700 suppressed. So Apple lawyers disagree with you. That is why all of Apple's photos of Samsung phones conveniently leave out the f700. It was released 1 month after iPhone. You would have to argue that Samsung copied iPhone, mass produced, and shipped the f700 in 4 weeks. Resistive touch, keyboard, etc have nothing to do with design, scroll bounce, ...so what's your point? Call the lawyers at Apple and maybe they will explain why they filed a motion to prevent the jury from seeing it and objected to any witness that would mention it and then get back to us. By the way, the point is not that Apple copied Samsung its that Samsung didn't copy Apple. We all know Apple copied the LG Prada.
36. XPERIA-KNIGHT posted on 04 Oct 2012, 13:20 3 0
^reminds me of an old cranky scrooge that aint never satisfied
40. verty posted on 04 Oct 2012, 13:47 3 0
Think before you open your mouth. Even steve said he stole from other people......... Now I have not admitted that Sammy stole anything from apple I just qouted Jobs. Sammy is a highly innovative company from which apple has drifted. Thumbs up Sammy the galaxy note is just too good a phone. I am so so ready to pick up the note 2. Lets see apple match it.........hehehehehehehe
66. rusticguy posted on 04 Oct 2012, 18:50 0 0
Apple will match it once they are free from being too busy fixing the most innovative things ever released in iOS666 ...
42. Berzerk000 posted on 04 Oct 2012, 14:07 6 0
So, when Apple "borrows" things from other companies it's ok, but when Samsung "copies" it's not? Look, there's no doubt that Samsung copied with the original Galaxy S. Anyone who debates against that without viable reasoning is insane. But really, what has Samsung done in terms of copying that Apple hasn't? Nothing. They are both at fault.
My question is; how come when Samsung does something to copy, the hammer gets thrown down on them immediately, but when Apple copies, everybody kind of puts it aside and forgets about it? That's hypocritical. Apple isn't some omnipotent being that can be pardoned for anything. They have to pay the price too. And if you can justify Samsung's 1 billion dollar penalty for copying Apple, then you should also be content with the fact that Apple should be punished as well.
45. DOGIEFRESH posted on 04 Oct 2012, 14:30 1 0
Is simple American companies get their products ripped off in Asia specially China and nothing happen is insane, now how could a South Korean expect the same fair treatment when is well know they've been copying for decades with nobody pay a penny I give an example Microsoft Products......!!!
53. redsox420 posted on 04 Oct 2012, 16:40 1 0
Big Fruity is an "American?" company, Sammy not. Big Fruity has $400-$500 BILLION in cash.. So thats a lot of weight to throw around. And besides Big Fruity wants to be a monopoly here, where they have failed worldwide to do that, so their focus is America and the uneducated sheep who gobble down their toxic junk.
Samsung gets a raw deal in patents here because the probably won't "grease the skids" at the Patent office if you catch my drift.. and Sammy got a raw deal from this Foreskin posing as a foreman of the jury. His comments right after were a mistake, saying Sammy was guilty from the moment they started deliberating. You should start with is Samsung, or anyone(thing) NOT guilty and then chip away or bolster that. You can't start with Guilty than go from there..
If Big Fruitys "victory" stands, then the company who first made a flat screen 42" tv, basically a rectangle with rounded corners should get a trillion dollars off the design.. Thats the reasoning that should have been applied in this case. Who the phuckkk thinks Big Fruity actually invented a box with rounded corners first needs to have their head examined!
56. dsDoan posted on 04 Oct 2012, 16:45 0 0
Apple does not have $500 billion in cash. You are looking at their market value, which is not the amount of cash they have on hand.
49. metalpoet (unregistered) posted on 04 Oct 2012, 16:08 3 0
Mxyzptik, are you employed by apple to be a phonearena trolling d**che bag!?!?!?!
51. -box- posted on 04 Oct 2012, 16:13 2 0
if apple had been more original in, well, anything, they wouldn't exist. If their patents weren't so horrendously and illogically (from an outsider's perspective) broad, they wouldn't have such BS things to try to defend and attack from. Could samsung have been more original in their designs? Sure, but, considering the F700 was their design first, and their other phones since evolved from that (granted, some apple influences here and there, but not for entire models), there's no wrongdoing in their continuation of those designs. Granted they've switched to a more rounded design for the GS3 and Note2, but you can see and follow the evolution.
65. RORYREVOLUTION posted on 04 Oct 2012, 18:49 1 0
You are so biased it's not just oozing out of you, it's flooded the damn website.
If this was the other way around, you'd be screaming "UNFAIR, WE WANT JUSTICE! APPLE DESERVES A FAIR TRIAL!"
69. networkdood posted on 04 Oct 2012, 21:09 0 0
Typical iPHONE user - judgment is fair when it favors apple...wow, what a shocker.
25. ZEUS.the.thunder.god posted on 04 Oct 2012, 12:18 7 0
i am wondering how much this hogan shi* got paid from apple.
It does not matter what the final outcome is, sooner or later justice will be served and apple will be brought down for good.
55. redsox420 posted on 04 Oct 2012, 16:42 0 0
Free eyephoneys, eyecrap, and anything ithis, ithat, and itheotherthings!
64. Jelly_Bean posted on 04 Oct 2012, 18:07 0 0
We gonna win this time because "Truth always wins"...!!!
74. PhenomFaz posted on 05 Oct 2012, 06:03 0 0
the actually didnt allow samsung to submit evidence on more than one instance and denied every existing evidence because of which Apple could look bad!
The whole trial sucked!
2. MeoCao (unregistered) posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:18 7 0
This revelation has lot of weight and we may see a new trial, and GS3 sales will have another chance for a big leap. LOL
38. Synack posted on 04 Oct 2012, 13:29 6 0
Not to mention that the trial was held in California..... Apple Nation.
Too much biased stuff going on in that trial.
4. PapaSmurf posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:21 7 0
This new case needs to happen soon because I'm dying to find out the final verdict!
12. Droid_X_Doug posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:36 5 0
Don't hold your breath waiting for a 'final' verdict. This case has a lot longer to go.
54. PapaSmurf posted on 04 Oct 2012, 16:42 0 0
I know, but I want yo see how everything ends... The FINAL final verdict.
5. networkdood posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:25 6 0
Either way, this trial is not hurting Samsung at all....not one bit...or byte.
13. Droid_X_Doug posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:39 11 1
More like not one dime. Apple's iP5 sales are off from analyst projections, while GS III sales continue powering along.
Is it any surprise that Apple wants a sales ban on the GS III?
31. jimjam posted on 04 Oct 2012, 13:01 1 1
Analysts suck anyway. I wouldn't read anything into that.
6. Peter27 posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:26 6 0
he tried to imagine how he would defend apple if the parents were his own.
that if not what he was supposed to do!
someone killed somebody, but I am there to imagine how I would defend him if it was me.
32. jimjam posted on 04 Oct 2012, 13:02 6 0
He kind of skipped the part about whether the patents were actually valid!!
9. theoak posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:30 1 14
Samsung selected and allowed him as a juror.
Samsung seemed to know that he used to be employed at Seagate.
Samsung seemed to be obviously okay with a Seagate employee on the jury especially considering the "special" relationship that Samsung and Seagate has. Samsung probably thought this juror would be an easy win for them.
Now that Samsung lost and discovers that this juror was not won over, Samsung says ... "Oh wait ... we don't like this juror after all."
Sounds like desperation on Samsung's part.
15. 14545 posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:47 8 1
Maybe they did know that he once worked for Seagate. That's not the point. I doubt it was disclosed that he had his own issues over "intellectual property". So that, to me, makes him disqualified to sit on the jury. Not to mention, the entire jury said that took his direction because most of them didn't know anything about it. So, when you break it down, he made their decisions for them.
23. dsDoan posted on 04 Oct 2012, 12:16 5 0
Maybe Samsung did know about the Seagate situation all along, and still allowed him onto the jury, as a backup plan. This way if they lost, they had an ace up their sleeve in the form of calling a mistrial.
If this is true, it simply means that Samsung's lawyers are using the same type of slimy techniques that Apple's lawyers have been using for the past 6 years.
And in that case, I say: Game on!
26. tedkord posted on 04 Oct 2012, 12:20 9 0
But, Samsung had no way of knowing he would completely ignore jury instructions, introduce his own knowledge (or lack thereof) into the deliberations, or have a clear bias entering into the trial.
29. wolstenbeast posted on 04 Oct 2012, 12:27 7 0
Rather than myopically bashing Samsung, try reading the whole article.
He failed to declare that he was sued by Seagate, over failure to repay relocation, house payments. This caused him and his wife to declare bankruptcy. Samsung partially own Seagate...... Connect the dots.
Hogan failed to volunteer this information during Voire Dire (declarations regarding jury selection), had he done so Samsung would have used their right to challenge and have him removed as a potential juror.
Given the undue influence he exerted over jury deliberations, Samsung has a better than average chance of getting a mistrial.
This, combined with the jury failing to even read let alone follow The Judges directions, unilaterally, deciding to not even consider one legal question and mistakes on the jury form [combined with a speed of decision that no trained patent lawyer could muster], means that Koh might order a mistrial, or even dismiss even with prejudice or chicken out and give leave to appeal.
Based on this new information, my bet is on a mistrial, as allowing appeal on these grounds would not endear her to the appellate judiciary. She wants to send to appeals and probably would have, before these new disclosures.
57. redsox420 posted on 04 Oct 2012, 16:50 1 0
It'll most likely NOT be this fact, but the fact he said Samsung was guilty even before they started to deliberate. THAT is a major no-no as jurors. You have to look at the evidence, so either he did before everyone else or had a preconceived Guilty verdict from day one..
I doubt Sammy knew his entire background, including the lawsuit. HE didn't disclose it. So how would Sammy have known. The process would have weeded him out had been honest about it.
10. tedkord posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:31 14 0
The more this bozo Hogan talks, the better Samsung's chances are. He's done nothing since the verdict but tell the media how he steered the jury to ignore prior art, disregard jury instructions, Iinterjected his own misunderstanding of patent law, and just generally made a shambles off the whole process.
18. 14545 posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:49 2 0
Just further proof we shouldn't have patent laws. (Yes, I said that correctly. No patent laws whatsoever.)