Does the 21 hour deliberation point to a flaw in the jury's thinking?

Does the 21 hour deliberation point to a flaw in the jury's thinking?
Despite the complexity of the Apple v. Samsung patent trial, it took the 9 person jury just 21 hours of deliberations to find in favor of Apple. The jury ruled that Samsung should pay the Cupertino based firm slightly north of $1 billion and ruled that for its counter-claim, Samsung should receive the grand sum of zero from Apple. Not counting the fans of each OS, who obviously have a biased opinion one way or the other, there are some impartial observers who believe that the speed at which the jury came to its decision represents some flaws in how the 7 men and 2 women reached their decision.

In the original decision, the jury awarded damages to Samsung for models that they had ruled Samsung did not infringe on Apple with. For example, the original verdict showed the jury ordering Samsung to pay Apple for infringing on the Cupertino based firm's IP with the Samsung Intercept smartphone and the Samsung GALAXY Tab 10.1 LTE tablet. The only problem is that the jury ruled that neither device infringed on Apple's patents. The mistake led to a $2.2 million recalculation of the damages in Samsung's favor.

Prior to deliberations, Judge Lucy Koh read through 109 pages of jury instructions that took her more than 2 hours to read. There were more than 700 different questions to be considered. Could the jury had gone through everything they were "instructed" to before deciding that Apple won the case? On Saturday, the day after the verdict was announced, juror Manuel Ilagan told the media that the jury realized on the first day of deliberations that Samsung had harmed Apple.

Despite the judge's instructions to the jury that penalties should be based on compensation and not punishment, jury foreman Velvin Hogan admitted that the jury wanted to send a message to Samsung that was painful for the Korean based tech titan, but not too much to be unreasonable. The jury, said Hogan, wanted to do more than just give Samsung a slap on the wrist. Hogan also told court officials that the jury didn't need the instructions to reach a verdict which could be a major issue during an appeal. You also might recall how Samsung pushed the issue of prior art to defend itself. The jury took hours of Samsung's defense and in the words of juror IIagan, "In fact we skipped that one, so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." 

Samsung has said it would appeal, but apparently the executives in Korea are in panic mode. One unnamed suit said that "It’s absolutely the worse scenario for us." The company called an emergency meeting of the heads of corporate strategy, mobile device, and marketing divisions. Apple will seek preliminary injunctions on Samsung devices that the jury ruled infringed on its patents and at the same September 20th hearing, Judge Koh could decide to triple the award.

The main points to consider about the verdict include, how did the jury reach a decision so quickly considering the complexity of the case, the verdict form and the instructions. The failure of the jury to award damages based on compensation, comments made by jury foreman Hogan relating to the jury instructions, the mistake that led to the $2.2 million recalculation and the decision to zip past prior art.

Samsung will be filing a Rule 50(b) motion that will ask Judge Koh to reverse the verdict or reduce the amount of the award based on the idea that no reasonable jury could have reached the conclusion that this jury did based on the evidence presented. Anything can happen although Judge Koh may decide to let the appeals court make the tough decisions.

source: Groklaw via SlashGear



1. -box-

Posts: 3991; Member since: Jan 04, 2012

Good to know there are more that are a little suspicious. I'm not expecting any earth-shattering changes, but more honest and objective reviews seem obvious, especially with so many expecting a mixed verdict

6. MeoCao unregistered

This may work in SS favor in appeal, but I care most about that pinch to zoom patent as this is a essential feature of all touch screen devices. Ignoring prior art evidence is a major negligence by by the jury.

21. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 2010

It is jury nullification. Expect the appeal to address what the jury refused to consider - invalidity of the Apple patents. Google's response shows what is in store for Apple - a deliberate grinding up of Apple's patent portfolio, either in the appeal of the verdict in Apple vs. Samsung or in other actions in the present (ITC) and future. I suspect that Apple's stock value is close to its peak.

2. PapaSmurf

Posts: 10457; Member since: May 14, 2012

The more I read, the more I want to move into the woods and forget what I just read...

4. weinerslav

Posts: 126; Member since: Jul 31, 2012

Sad but true... Those jurors must be retarded, everybody was aware that the decision was rushed and they didn't care about Samsung's defense, but bragging about that is the cherry on the top of the cake! Seriously, at least they could shut their mouths and pretend they cared about being fair!!!!! On the other hand... Look at the judge Koh picture!!! Isn't she adorable??? I want to hug her and squeeze her until she pees!

14. MeoCao unregistered

Haha, if Koh reverse the jury's verdict would you still hug her and do something else :))

23. Birds

Posts: 1172; Member since: Nov 21, 2011

If she reverses the order I'd hug her until she dies... No body, I MEAN NOBODY DISSES MY BOO SAMSUNG!!!! THAT'S HOW PEOPLE GET HURT...But I'd be glad she gave Samsung another chance. lol

3. dragonscourgex

Posts: 307; Member since: Jan 16, 2012

So, the jury can just skip evidence. That's nice to know.

9. rusticguy

Posts: 2828; Member since: Aug 11, 2012

Yes they can because their intention was to PUNISH HARD. With that mindset it's obvious what they did was not wrong ...

22. Droid_X_Doug

Posts: 5993; Member since: Dec 22, 2010

"So, the jury can just skip evidence." And the court of appeal can vacate the entire verdict and remand the case for a new trial with instructions to the trial court as to how to proceed in the new trial.

5. Slammer

Posts: 1515; Member since: Jun 03, 2010

No question that there was some damaging evidence against Samsung. However, I think the most crucial keypoint from the juror, is that Apple won from day one of deliberations. This thinking greatly affects and conditions the mind in possibly making a wrong conclusion for judgement. So, no matter what Samsung placed in front of the panel for evidence, Samsung had the cards stacked against them from day one. John B.

7. protozeloz

Posts: 5396; Member since: Sep 16, 2010

This just means the jury was impartial, I wouldn't be surprised if digging into their lives we find at least one fanboy that could have influenced greatly on the final verdict, this COULD turn beneficial to Samsung if used correctly could help them grab as much as they could to turn the tables

11. networkdood

Posts: 6330; Member since: Mar 31, 2010

Right you are, johnny

8. sp3llv3xit

Posts: 25; Member since: Sep 15, 2011

Americans love Apple. It's typical of a people to love their own. Since they rendered this verdict, let its effects be confined to the borders of the United States. They can live without any other mobile phones save for iPhones!

17. android8

Posts: 23; Member since: Aug 07, 2012

Very True !!

10. networkdood

Posts: 6330; Member since: Mar 31, 2010

Back from being banned for saying a particular name of an animal. Wow...the jury in this case should b dismissed for ignorance... it was a rush job...obviously.

12. Contreramanjaro

Posts: 153; Member since: Dec 04, 2011

I don't like the iPhone. I don't like Samsung phones. I like the rest of the stuff those companies make though. I wasn't biased for either side to win but I was shocked by how quickly the jury worked and a little suspicious. Honestly, I think Samsung crossed a few lines on the iPhone and iPad but not to the extent they said. Things like pinch to zoom have almost crossed the line into standard operations and they seem like they should not be severely punished. I was pretty surprised also at how well Samsung defended itself and had me on their side at the end of it all adding to my later surprise. The only reason I'm so concerned about this ruling is I don't want it to open a path towards everyone just suing each other and killing off newer, smaller phone makers. Where would we be if tech companies started out this way 30 years ago? There was so much open source that led to better experiencse for users (like VisiCalc.)

13. traccer055

Posts: 11; Member since: Sep 04, 2009

happy to know how horrid this jury was

15. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

"You also might recall how Samsung pushed the issue of prior art to defend itself. The jury took hours of Samsung's defense and in the words of juror IIagan, "In fact we skipped that one, so we could go on faster. It was bogging us down." " Nothing more needs to be said after reading this.. WOW. least the juror was

27. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

And the Samsung lawyers replied with " thanks for the air tight mistrial defense, juror!" I want these jurors to keep talking. The more they do, the more you realize that at least some of them had an agenda and it was more than enough to push the group forward to their final outcome. Really, you just... skipped their defense.. which I thought proved prior art damn well, just so you could "send a message to Samsung that was painful for the Korean based tech titan". Thanks for admitting that buddy. No seriously, thanks. Not only are you proving everything many of us thought about this whole case and its bias from beginning to end, you are giving air tight reasons for appeals, overturns, and mistrials. Keep it up.

16. TheRetroReplay

Posts: 256; Member since: Mar 20, 2012

I knew that something was wrong with that jury. They decided to forgo Samsung's defense and evidence and were more interested in punishing Samsung. I wouldn't be surprised if the jury was rigged in Apple's favor and saying that the decision was for Apple since day one kinda drives that suspicion. The jury did not care about Samsung's side, that should have been a mistrial.

18. android8

Posts: 23; Member since: Aug 07, 2012

I think Apple got the advantage of being in home country.

19. Fuego84

Posts: 357; Member since: May 13, 2012

The jury had their brains iwashed I bet a long time before this trial.

20. Fuego84

Posts: 357; Member since: May 13, 2012

They should of chose jury members consisting of people that don't currently use iphones or Samsung phones. Maybe an some windows phone users and blackberry users.

24. saltydog15

Posts: 11; Member since: Jun 13, 2012

was SJ one of the 7 male jurors? 'we can skip that piece of evidence, YOU'RE HOLDING IT WRONG!'

25. Aeires unregistered

Koh is a rookie judge. Whether she wants to go down in history or pass that along to someone who wants the spotlight will be the important factor here. Looking at the jury foreman's responses, it would be easy to throw the trial out and restart again with a new jury. Going to be interesting to see how this one pans out.

26. ericsorensen

Posts: 53; Member since: Nov 17, 2011

They also awarded damages for Samsung phones where there could be no loss of iPhone sales (phones that were on networks other than AT+T). Acording to other blog sites, that would reduce the amount from $1B to $256M.

28. Scott_H

Posts: 167; Member since: Oct 28, 2011

I am truly flabergasted. They just skipped the issue of prior art? That's sort of like being the jury for a speeding ticket and skipping the part about whether or not the cop could positively identify the car they ticketed...

29. jroc74

Posts: 6023; Member since: Dec 30, 2010

They just skipped over prior art....and prior art coulda been a big help to Samsung. I predict a successful appeal by Samsung and maybe an investigation into this case.

30. remixfa

Posts: 14605; Member since: Dec 19, 2008

like a ref declaring a winner without ever checking the score board or watching a play. i REALLY want these jurors to keep talking. they proving how lopsided this case really was and deserves a revisit if not a mistrial of some sort.

Latest Stories

This copy is for your personal, non-commercial use only. You can order presentation-ready copies for distribution to your colleagues, clients or customers at or use the Reprints & Permissions tool that appears at the bottom of each web page. Visit for samples and additional information.