x PhoneArena is hiring! Reviewer in the USA
  • Options

Samsung asks court to throw out $1.05 billion verdict, saying jury foreman was biased

0. phoneArena 04 Oct 2012, 11:13 posted on

Alleging that the foreman of the jury that ruled against it was biased and failed to disclose important personal information, Samsung filed with the court to throw out the verdict that awarded Apple $1.05 billion and ruled that Samsung had infringed on several Apple patents...

This is a discussion for a news. To read the whole news, click here

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 18:07

64. Jelly_Bean (Posts: 109; Member since: 11 Sep 2012)

We gonna win this time because "Truth always wins"...!!!

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 18:49 1

65. RORYREVOLUTION (Posts: 3114; Member since: 12 Jan 2010)

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!"

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 18:50

66. rusticguy (Posts: 2828; Member since: 11 Aug 2012)

Apple will match it once they are free from being too busy fixing the most innovative things ever released in iOS666 ...

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 19:14 3

68. imsickwithphone (banned) (Posts: 76; Member since: 17 May 2012)


posted on 04 Oct 2012, 21:09

69. networkdood (Posts: 6330; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)

Typical iPHONE user - judgment is fair when it favors apple...wow, what a shocker.

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 21:56

70. willard12 (Posts: 1924; Member since: 04 Jul 2012)

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.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 06:03

74. PhenomFaz (Posts: 1236; Member since: 26 Sep 2012)

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!

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 11:50

76. Mxyzptlk (Posts: 16352; Member since: 21 Apr 2012)

No that's called justice.

posted on 05 Oct 2012, 20:07

77. becton (Posts: 1; Member since: 05 Oct 2012)

Sony capacitive phones did precede the iphone....the p900 (the phone the iphone design was stolen from) was released in 2003.

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:18 7

2. MeoCao (unregistered)

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

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 13:29 6

38. Synack (Posts: 680; Member since: 05 Jul 2011)

Not to mention that the trial was held in California..... Apple Nation.

Too much biased stuff going on in that trial.

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:19 7

3. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10457; Member since: 14 May 2012)

Hogan is just as low as Apple...

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:21 7

4. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10457; Member since: 14 May 2012)

This new case needs to happen soon because I'm dying to find out the final verdict!

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:36 5

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

Don't hold your breath waiting for a 'final' verdict. This case has a lot longer to go.

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 16:42

54. PapaSmurf (Posts: 10457; Member since: 14 May 2012)

I know, but I want yo see how everything ends... The FINAL final verdict.

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:25 6

5. networkdood (Posts: 6330; Member since: 31 Mar 2010)

Either way, this trial is not hurting Samsung at all....not one bit...or byte.

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:39 11

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

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?

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 13:01 1

31. jimjam (Posts: 306; Member since: 28 Jun 2011)

Analysts suck anyway. I wouldn't read anything into that.

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:26 6

6. Peter27 (Posts: 233; Member since: 13 Jul 2012)

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.

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:27 3

7. Peter27 (Posts: 233; Member since: 13 Jul 2012)


posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:29 8

8. Peter27 (Posts: 233; Member since: 13 Jul 2012)

basically he says he was there to defend apple!

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 13:02 6

32. jimjam (Posts: 306; Member since: 28 Jun 2011)

He kind of skipped the part about whether the patents were actually valid!!

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:30 1

9. theoak (Posts: 324; Member since: 16 Nov 2011)

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.

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:47 8

15. 14545 (Posts: 1666; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)

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.

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 12:16 5

23. dsDoan (Posts: 233; Member since: 28 Dec 2011)

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!

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 12:20 9

26. tedkord (Posts: 13177; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)

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.

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 12:27 7

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

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.

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 16:50 1

57. redsox420 (Posts: 90; Member since: 27 Aug 2012)

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.

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:31 14

10. tedkord (Posts: 13177; Member since: 17 Jun 2009)

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.

posted on 04 Oct 2012, 11:49 2

18. 14545 (Posts: 1666; Member since: 22 Nov 2011)

Just further proof we shouldn't have patent laws. (Yes, I said that correctly. No patent laws whatsoever.)

* Some comments have been hidden, because they don't meet the discussions rules.

Want to comment? Please login or register.

Latest stories