decoration decoration
Stories

GROKLAW
When you want to know more...
decoration
For layout only
Home
Archives
Site Map
Search
About Groklaw
Awards
Legal Research
Timelines
ApplevSamsung
ApplevSamsung p.2
ArchiveExplorer
Autozone
Bilski
Cases
Cast: Lawyers
Comes v. MS
Contracts/Documents
Courts
DRM
Gordon v MS
GPL
Grokdoc
HTML How To
IPI v RH
IV v. Google
Legal Docs
Lodsys
MS Litigations
MSvB&N
News Picks
Novell v. MS
Novell-MS Deal
ODF/OOXML
OOXML Appeals
OraclevGoogle
Patents
ProjectMonterey
Psystar
Quote Database
Red Hat v SCO
Salus Book
SCEA v Hotz
SCO Appeals
SCO Bankruptcy
SCO Financials
SCO Overview
SCO v IBM
SCO v Novell
SCO:Soup2Nuts
SCOsource
Sean Daly
Software Patents
Switch to Linux
Transcripts
Unix Books
Your contributions keep Groklaw going.
To donate to Groklaw 2.0:

Groklaw Gear

Click here to send an email to the editor of this weblog.


Contact PJ

Click here to email PJ. You won't find me on Facebook Donate Paypal


User Functions

Username:

Password:

Don't have an account yet? Sign up as a New User

No Legal Advice

The information on Groklaw is not intended to constitute legal advice. While Mark is a lawyer and he has asked other lawyers and law students to contribute articles, all of these articles are offered to help educate, not to provide specific legal advice. They are not your lawyers.

Here's Groklaw's comments policy.


What's New

STORIES
No new stories

COMMENTS last 48 hrs
No new comments


Sponsors

Hosting:
hosted by ibiblio

On servers donated to ibiblio by AMD.

Webmaster
Samsung's Claims of Juror Misconduct Revealed in Unredacted Filings ~pj Updated 2Xs
Tuesday, October 02 2012 @ 11:37 PM EDT

Samsung has now filed an unredacted version [PDF] of its motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and/or remittitur. That's the one that was originally filed with a redacted section we figured out was about the foreman, Velvin Hogan. The judge ordered it filed unsealed, and so now we get to read all about it.

It's pretty shocking to see the full story. I understand now why Samsung tried to seal it. They call Mr. Hogan untruthful in voir dire (and I gather in media interviews too), accuse him of "implied bias" and of tainting the process by introducing extraneous "evidence" of his own during jury deliberations, all of which calls, Samsung writes, for an evidentiary hearing and a new trial with an unbiased jury as the cure.

Were you wondering how Samsung found out about the lawsuit that Hogan failed to mention in voir dire, the litigation between Seagate and Hogan that Samsung dug up? Apple was, as I'll show you. You wouldn't believe it if it was in a movie script. The lawyer who sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in 1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for Samsung.

What are the odds?

And did you read in Reuters [PDF, the B part] the story Hogan told about that litigation? Samsung shows that his story to Reuters is not the way it was in real life. There are, of course, materials in support, and they too are now unsealed.

The filings, first:

2012 - Filed & Entered: 10/01/2012
Declaration in Support
Docket Text: Declaration of Susan R. Estrich in Support of [1819] Samsung's Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law, New Trial, and/or Remittitur Pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50 and 59 filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: # (1) Exhibit)(Estrich, Susan) (Filed on 10/1/2012) Modified on 10/2/2012 linking entry to document #1819 (dhmS, COURT STAFF).

2013 - Filed & Entered: 10/02/2012
Notice (Other)
Docket Text: NOTICE by Samsung Electronics America, Inc.(a New York corporation), Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC re [2009] Order on Administrative Motion to File Under Seal Samsung's Rules 50 and 59 Motion; Estrich Declaration in Support; Exhibits A-O to the Estrich Declaration; Exhibits 13 and 18 to the Pierce Declaration (Un-redacted) (Attachments: # (1) Declaration of Susan Estrich in Support of Samsung's Rules 50 and 59 Motion, # (2) Exhibit A to the Estrich Declaration, # (3) Exhibit B to the Estrich Declaration, # (4) Exhibit C to the Estrich Declaration, # (5) Exhibit D to the Estrich Declaration, # (6) Exhibit E to the Estrich Declaration, # (7) Exhibit F to the Estrich Declaration, # (8) Exhibit G to the Estrich Declaration, # (9) Exhibit H to the Estrich Declaration, # (10) Exhibit I to the Estrich Declaration, # (11) Exhibit J to the Estrich Declaration, # (12) Exhibit K to the Estrich Declaration, # (13) Exhibit L to the Estrich Declaration, # (14) Exhibit M to the Estrich Declaration, # (15) Exhibit N to the Estrich Declaration, # (16) Exhibit O to the Estrich Declaration, # (17) Exhibit 13 to the Pierce Declaration, # (18) Exhibit 18 to the Pierce Declaration)(Estrich, Susan) (Filed on 10/2/2012)

Exhibit A to 2013 is the Seagate v Hogan complaint filed in 1993 by Seagate, and Exhibit B is the bankruptcy filing. Seagate filed a claim in that bankruptcy. Note that Seagate did a kind of deal with Samsung in 2011 (see Exhibit C [PDF]), buying the hard drive unit and Samsung becoming a major shareholder in Seagate, in fact the largest single shareholder in Seagate, and I would suspect that Samsung's thinking is that Mr. Hogan might have a teensy bug up his nose about Samsung as a result of that connection to Seagate.

The issue, then, is juror misconduct, not that they just didn't know what they were doing during deliberations. Hogan did not mention the case brought against him by Seagate in voir dire, significantly enough, even though he was specifically asked by the judge, as were all the prospective jurors, to list all cases any of them was ever involved in as a witness or a party. Hogan told Reuters (see 2012 [PDF]) that he wasn't asked about all cases. But he was, as you can see for yourself in the transcript [PDF] of the voir dire. If he was on a crusade to get back at Seagate/Samsung, he might logically not wish to reveal this litigation, knowing he'd likely be cut from the jury. One has to wonder if he always tells the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Did he fail to answer fully and truthfully because he was so eager to be on the jury? If he had revealed the Seagate issue, no doubt Samsung would have objected to him being on the jury. As Samsung points out, there is a case, United States v. Colombo [PDF], that held that "A juror’s failure to answer truthfully also may constitute a 'prejudicial impairment' of a party’s 'right to the exercise of peremptory challenges.'” So Samsung was robbed of that opportunity.

Let me show you Samsung's unredacted section in full on juror misconduct, because that is exactly what they say:

I. JUROR CONDUCT REQUIRES A NEW TRIAL

A new trial is warranted based on a finding of implied bias if a juror “lies materially and repeatedly in response to legitimate inquiries,” and a court should “presume bias where a juror lies in order to secure a seat on the jury.” Dyer v. Calderon, 151 F.3d 970, 982 (9th Cir. 1998) (en banc). “Statements which tend to show deceit during voir dire are not barred by [Fed. R. Evid. 606(b)(1)].” Hard v. Burlington N. R.R., 812 F.2d 482, 485 (9th Cir. 1987). A juror’s failure to answer truthfully also may constitute a “prejudicial impairment” of a party’s “right to the exercise of peremptory challenges.” United States v. Colombo, 869 F.2d 149, 151 (2d Cir. 1989); see United States v. Gonzalez, 214 F.3d 1109, 1114 (9th Cir. 2000).

The jury foreman, Velvin Hogan, failed to answer truthfully during voir dire. Asked by the Court whether “you or a family member or someone very close to you [has] ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?” (Reporter’s Transcript (“RT”) 148:18-21), he disclosed one such lawsuit but failed to disclose two others, including one in which he was sued by his former employer, Seagate, for breach of contract after he failed to repay a promissory note (RT 148:22-150:12; Seagate Tech., Inc. v. Hogan, Case No. MS-93-0919 (Santa Cruz Mun. Ct. June 30, 1993), Declaration of Susan Estrich (“Estrich Decl.”) Ex. A), and filed for personal bankruptcy six months later (In re Velvin R. Hogan and Carol K. Hogan, Case No. 93-58291-MM (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 1993); Estrich Decl., Ex. B). Samsung has a substantial strategic relationship with Seagate (Estrich Decl. Ex. C), which culminated last year in the publicized sale of a division to Seagate in a deal worth $1.375 billion, making Samsung the single largest direct shareholder of Seagate (id. Exs. D-G). The attorney who sued Mr. Hogan on Seagate’s behalf is the husband of a Quinn Emanuel partner. Id. ¶3. Mr. Hogan’s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore in questioning and that would have triggered a motion to strike for cause or a peremptory strike.

Moreover, Mr. Hogan’s public statements suggest that he failed to answer the Court’s question truthfully “in order to secure a seat on the jury,” in which case bias is presumed, Dyer, 151 F.3d at 982-83 (“The individual who lies in order to improve his chances of serving [on a jury] has too much of a stake in the matter to be considered indifferent.”). He stated he “expected to be dismissed from the jury because of [his] experience” and was “grateful” to be selected (Estrich Decl. Ex. H), and that, “[e]xcept for my family, it was the high spot of my career. You might even say my life.” Id., Ex. I. During voir dire, Mr. Hogan remained silent when asked if he had “strong feelings or strong opinions about either the United States patent system or intellectual property laws” (RT 167:1-6) and would be able to follow the Court’s instructions “even if it may not completely correspond to what you may know about the patent system or the intellectual property laws.” RT 159:25-160:11; 165:13-18. After the verdict, however, he said he wanted to be satisfied that the verdicts “protected copyrights and intellectual property rights” in order “to send a message to the industry at large that patent infringing is not the right thing to do” and “make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist.” Estrich Decl. Exs. I, J. K.

Finally, Mr. Hogan’s self-reported conduct during the jury deliberations presents the “reasonable possibility” that extraneous material “could have affected the verdict.” Sea Hawk Seafoods, Inc. v. Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co., 206 F.3d 900, 906 (9th Cir. 2000). In post-verdict interviews with the media, Mr. Hogan said that he told his fellow jurors an accused device infringes a design patent based on “look and feel” (Estrich Decl. Ex. N), that an accused device infringes a utility patent unless it is “entirely different” (id. Ex. M), that a prior art reference could not be invalidating unless that reference was “interchangeable” (id. Exs. L, N), and that invalidating prior art must be currently in use (id. Ex. O). These incorrect and extraneous legal standards had no place in the jury room. See Hard, 812 F.2d at 485; Gibson v. Clanon, 633 F.2d 851, 853, 855 (9th Cir. 1981); United States v. Perkins, 748 F.2d 1519, 1530-33 (11th Cir. 1984); Casanas v. Yates, 2010 WL 3987333, at *6 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 12, 2010) (approving for cause dismissal where juror “was applying his experience to question the law, not using his experience to determine the facts”).

For all these reasons, Mr. Hogan’s conduct during voir dire and jury deliberations must be fully examined in a hearing with all jurors and can be cured only by a grant of new trial.

Reuters' Alison Frankel reported that Hogan claimed (see #2012 [PDF], p. 2, paragraphs 4 and 5 and Exhibit B, that he'd sued Seagate for fraud and then Seagate countersued:
In an exclusive interview Tuesday about Samsung's secret new allegations, Hogan, an engineer, confirmed that he was a party in two cases cited in Samsung's brief, a 1993 case from municipal court in Santa Cruz titled Seagate Technology v. Hogan and a 1993 federal bankruptcy case titled In re Velvin R. Hogan. According to Hogan, when Seagate hired him in the 1980s and he moved from Colorado to California, his new employer agreed to split the cost of paying off the mortgage on his Colorado home. But after Hogan was laid off in the early 1990s, he told us, Seagate claimed he owed the company that money. Hogan said he sued Seagate for fraud, Seagate countersued, and he ultimately declared personal bankrupty to protect his house.
The materials Samsung filed do not include any confirmation of any such tale, and instead show that it was Seagate that brought the action, with a claim for breach of contract by Hogan. On page 32 of Exhibit B to #2013, the bankruptcy materials, the filing describes the reason for the claims filed by Seagate against Hogan like this:
On or about April 19, 1992, defendant breached the agreement by the following acts: Failure to repay plaintiff the principal sum of $25,000.00, together with accrued interest thereon, within 270 days of defendant's termination of employment with plaintiff which occurred on or about July 19, 1991.
Seagate was claiming damages of the principal sum of $25,000 plus prejudgment interest at the "agreed rate" of ten percent, from July 19, 1991 to the filing of the lawsuit. Agreed in what sense? On page 33, you see the actual 1989 agreement, whereby Hogan agreed to pay Seagate those sums in the event his employment was terminated, which it was. During his employment, it was a loan, and he only paid a portion of bonuses received each year to payment of principal and any interest. He filed for bankruptcy instead of paying Seagate back, after his employment was terminated. There is no sign of any issue of fraud being raised. Nor was the loan tied to any Colorado house, at least it's not mentioned in the loan agreement.

That's a strange way to get a house. Of course he owed more than $25,000 on the house in California he had bought, and looking at the forms, it looks like that debt to a company named Corstan is also listed in the bankruptcy.

The parties' lawyers have been in communication about all this, the charge of juror misconduct, with one email from Apple indicating they wonder if Samsung preserved arguments concerning juror misconduct. Samsung in #2012 therefore says this:

3. In response to Samsung’s motion detailing Velvin Hogan’s failure to reveal his litigation with Seagate during voir dire and its impact on the integrity of the trial and the verdict, Apple demanded that Samsung disclose the timing of its knowledge regarding those facts. A true and correct copy of Apple’s email, along with further correspondence between counsel for the parties that resulted in Apple’s agreement that any such disclosures would not constitute a waiver of any privilege, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. By way of separate declaration, Samsung is confirming to Apple that it did not know of Mr. Hogan’s undisclosed litigation against Seagate until after the verdict. To date, Apple has not revealed whether it was aware of Mr. Hogan’s litigation against Seagate prior to the verdict or prior to Samsung’s Motion.
This exhibit [PDF] is where you can find the emails between the parties' lawyers in the first part, Exhibit A. One thing is clear. These lawyers dislike each other, or at least they are playing serious hardball. Note Apple refusing to give Samsung until Friday AM after Yom Kippur, insisting they must receive by Thursday noon "a sworn declaration from Samsung disclosing how and when it learned of the facts underlying its allegation that the judicial process was tainted". That gave Samsung just that morning to get it all pulled together. I assume Apple is asking when Samsung learned about the Seagate v. Hogan case because of Samsung stating in the JMOL: "The attorney who sued Mr. Hogan on Seagate’s behalf is the husband of a Quinn Emanuel partner." (See Declaration of Susan R. Estrich, paragraph 3: "Diane M. Doolittle, a partner in the Silicon Valley office of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, is married to Michael F. Grady, the attorney who filed the complaint, Exhibit A, against Velvin Hogan on behalf of Seagate.")

So that is how they found out. But the operative question is, when?

What does all this mean? It means that this claim by Samsung isn't about jury thought processes, the kind of issue that the judge mentioned as being not something that can be questioned. This is instead about juror *misconduct*, which absolutely is the kind of thing that can undo jury verdicts. There have been a couple of those just this week that I put in News Picks.

Samsung is accusing Hogan of the voir dire failure but it also says that the jury "improperly considered extraneous evidence during deliberations" -- which is about Hogan's Aha moment and that he misstated the law about prior art. So we were on target at Groklaw to highlight that.

If Hogan was on a mission to get back at Seagate, obviously that could tie in to why he felt so urgent about coming up with an aha moment, after the first day's deliberations when he felt, or so he told the media, that the jury was going to go Samsung's way. I think you can see how these two issues could indeed be related to the verdict. I don't know if they are or not; nor do I know if the judge will find it so. But I know she ought to have a hearing to get to the bottom of it. My question, I confess, is will answers to questions be truthful? I suppose that is why Samsung says the only real cure is a new trial.

Many of the rest of the exhibits to #2013 are media interviews with Hogan. Interestingly, comments to the articles are included. All I can say is, if you ever comment on an online legal news story, think before you write, because you may go down in history.

And finally, the now-unredacted Exhibit 18 [PDF] to the Pierce Declaration is a letter from Apple to Samsung back in May, claiming that it was already licensed to Samsung's FRAND patents, even though they hadn't yet agreed to a price and hadn't paid anything at all. Some license that is. Apple is following in Microsoft's FRAND footsteps, and they both are marching to the same drummer, that the license is more or less automatically in place as soon as either of them wants it to be, and the price can be worked out post-license. Of course, Samsung disagrees, as does Motorola, but so far some courts seem to be going along with the argument, which is deeply puzzling, in that a contract that includes monetary terms can't really be in place, unless I missed something in school, without consideration and both sides agreeing to the terms. So I expect to see a lot more on this theme in appeals.

Update: Joe Mullin at ars technica highlights one other point from Samsung's juror misconduct arguments that is significant but that I failed to mention specifically:

Samsung also suggests that Hogan didn't disclose how pro-patent he was when asked in court whether he had "strong feelings" about the U.S. patent system. The new motion argues that Hogan's silence didn't sync up with his later statements to The Verge that "except for my family, it [jury service] was the high point of my career... you might even say my life," and that he wanted to be satisfied "that this trial was fair, and protected copyrights and intellectual property rights, no matter who they belonged to."
And Bloomberg has asked Mr. Hogan about the charges, and he again tells the story about a 10-year limit to the judge's question. Does he not realize that courts do transcripts? Or is he hoping he can excuse his conduct as a misunderstanding? Here's what Bloomberg reports:
Hogan, in a phone interview yesterday, denied that there was any misconduct, saying the court instructions for potential jurors required disclosure of any litigation they were involved in within the last 10 years -- and that the 1993 bankruptcy and related litigation involving Seagate fell well outside that time range.

“Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time constraint, of course I would’ve disclosed that,” Hogan said, referring to the bankruptcy and related litigation. “I’m willing to go in front of the judge to tell her that I had no intention of being on this jury, let alone withholding anything that would’ve allowed me to be excused.”

Hogan said once he was selected as a juror he “took it as an honor” because the suit was related to his job as an electrical engineer, which he’s done for almost 40 years.

“I answered every question the judge asked me” and Samsung “had every opportunity to question me,” Hogan said. He added that he’s surprised Samsung didn’t know about the history it’s now citing given the relationship the lawyer Samsung refers to in its filing has with another lawyer at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, the firm representing the company.

Hogan said yesterday’s filing has him wondering whether Samsung “let me in the jury just to have an excuse for a new trial if it didn’t go in their favor.”

I see. It's all Samsung's fault. But he's not biased. My bogometer is ringing off the wall. Perhaps I may be excused for assuming from his response that Apple has now contacted Mr. Hogan?

In any case, he was asked an open-ended question. He was asked by the judge to tell her about any litigation he had *ever* been involved in, as a party or a witness. And given that he knows about the charges, I think he has to know that by now, which makes his answer rather questionable.

The trouble with not telling the whole truth is that later when you tell people some new things, they may not believe you.

Here's precisely what he was asked, as evidenced by the transcript of voir dire:

THE COURT: Okay. Welcome back. Please take a seat. We had a few more departures in your absence. Let's continue with the questions. The next question is, have you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?
Open-ended as the wind.

Update 2: To test Hogan's claim that the jury was only asked about the last ten years, I went back to the transcript, the full PDF itself, and I note one juror gives the lie to that claim, because in answering the same question from the judge, he or she mentioned a 1998 case:

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES. BACK IN 1998, I HAD A SURGERY. I DIDN'T HAVE INSURANCE. I WAS PURSUED BY THE DOCTOR AND I WENT TO THE JUDGE AND WE AGREED TO -- I AGREED TO PAY THE FEES IN INSTALLMENTS. THAT'S ALL I HAVE.
Even if it were true, which I doubt, that he thought he was being asked only about ten years of time, when that answer happened, he would have had reason to understand that the question was not about only ten years but included the '90s as well, and in fact ever.

By the way, there is a reason why judges ask this question, and it too gives the lie to the idea that a judge would only be interested in ten years. I'll show you how the judge explained it to this jury pool, from the transcript again:

THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND THIS IS FOR EVERYONE. WE'LL TALK FURTHER ABOUT WHO'S BEEN ON JURY DUTY, BUT THERE ARE DEFINITELY DIFFERENT, YOU KNOW, STANDARDS OF PROOF IN DIFFERENT CASES, AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE -- YOU ALL HAD CIVIL CASES, SO I WOULD ASSUME THAT YOU ALSO HAD, YOU KNOW, PREPONDERANCE OF THE EVIDENCE. DOES THAT SOUND FAMILIAR? AND WE'LL TALK ABOUT THIS A LITTLE BIT LATER ON, BUT IN DIFFERENT TYPES OF CASES, THERE MAY BE DIFFERENT STANDARDS OF PROOF, AND ALSO THE LAW MAY HAVE CHANGED SINCE WHENEVER YOU WERE A LITIGANT. SO I WANT TO MAKE SURE THAT BOTH MR. HOGAN, AND MS. ROUGIERI, THAT YOU WOULD APPLY THE LAW AS I INSTRUCT YOU AND NOT BASED ON YOUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE LAW BASED ON YOUR OWN CASES. FIRST ROW?

IS THAT CORRECT, MR. HOGAN?

PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.

The judges are interested in all cases, because, as she explained -- even asking Hogan if he understood it -- the law doesn't stand still. Even if his experience in a civil case was remembered perfectly, what he learned about the law could have changed since or it could be a matter with a different standard of proof.

So, for example, when he explained to his fellow jurors about his experience in getting his own patents through the approval process at the USPTO, that was about a decade ago. The law has changed since, so whatever he learned, it's not proof about how the law is today, and yet, after telling the judge "Yes", he understood, he did exactly what he said he would not do.


  


Samsung's Claims of Juror Misconduct Revealed in Unredacted Filings ~pj Updated 2Xs | 751 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Corrections here
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Tuesday, October 02 2012 @ 11:57 PM EDT
Please place your corrections in the title if possible.

[ Reply to This | # ]

COMES Documents here
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Tuesday, October 02 2012 @ 11:59 PM EDT
If we move up the list will more people participate?

[ Reply to This | # ]

News Picks
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:00 AM EDT
News picks and banter here please. Include links where appropriate. Thank you
very much.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Off-topic Posts
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:02 AM EDT
Keep off the Topic. Topical posters will be down-modded.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Newbie FAQs
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:06 AM EDT
FAQ #1. Note to newbies, see above for how to properly make a First Post. Once
having achieved all four of the above posts in any order, then you may claim a
next post as "First Post".

Please be creative. First Posts posts are so old hat they can induce nausea,
unless dressed up in creative ways.

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • FAQ #2 - Authored by: soronlin on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 06:26 AM EDT
Samsung's Claims of Juror Misconduct Revealed in Unredacted Filings ~pj
Authored by: celtic_hackr on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:13 AM EDT
This is a great article. Samsung seems to have a slam-dunk with this appeal. And
shame on Apple for even thinking about objecting to this. They should in all
fairness be siding with Samsung on this issue, and any company that can stand by
and let this atrocity of the US Legal system stand is not worthy of my least
penny or respect. I've never been a fan of Apple products, but always had
respect for the company and their vision.

They are dead to me now. (Yes, I'm a Pat Morita fan and saw his movies. Yes, I
know he didn't say that paraphrased line either; so don't correct me by saying
he never said something like that.)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Well, this answers a few things
Authored by: calris74 on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:38 AM EDT
To me, most of all, it answers Samsung's eagerness to get the
Galaxy Tab ban overturned. This argument makes the case for a
new trial so compelling as to be almost certain in Samsung's
eyes. So getting the ban overturned and then scheduling a new
trial (possibly months or years away) is a very nice move
indeed :)

[ Reply to This | # ]

The official 'How will Florian spin it' thread
Authored by: calris74 on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:40 AM EDT
Of course this is all just irrelevant over-reaction on
Samsung's part and has no factual, legal or logical basis for
the judge to agree to any of it

[ Reply to This | # ]

Settlement, anyone?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:43 AM EDT
A new trial is quite impractical. The first trial set indelibly inconsistent
precedents. Apple will have to wait more years for any more injunctive relief,
after the first fiasco. They might lose everything eventually.

What is the judge to do? What is Apple to do?

Samsung holds the cards now that Apple's hand has been depleted.

[ Reply to This | # ]

How does this look on Judge Lucy's Score Card? n/t
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:48 AM EDT
just askin'

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung's Claims of Juror Misconduct Revealed in Unredacted Filings ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:56 AM EDT
Irony goes here

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hogan talks to Bloomberg about Samsung's Jury misconduct claims
Authored by: HenchmenResource on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:02 AM EDT
Here is a article where Velvin Hogan Responds to questions about misconduct in voir dire

In the article he says that he was only asked about cases/litigation he was involved in the last 10 years, reading the except that was posted when this was first filed I don't see a time limit qualifier used. I sadly don't have the time to read the court filings in their entirety so maybe I missed something. Could someone clarify if there was a qualifier that I missed, or is Mr. Hogan lying or maybe just senile? I'd hate to say he was coached since that would be jumping to conclusions that I have no evidence of so I am hoping someone who has read the court documents in their entirety could shed some light on this?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung's Claims of Juror Misconduct Revealed in Unredacted Filings ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:03 AM EDT
Samsung is accusing Hogan of the voir dire failure but it also says that the jury "improperly considered extraneous evidence during deliberations" -- which is about Hogan's Aha moment and that he misstated the law about prior art.
I have to question this in one way. It seems as if you are saying that he "invented" the aha momemt to try to sway the jury to his way of thinking (in order to get back at Seagate/Samsung).

If this were really true, and not a "true" aha moment why would he have been proclaiming it all over the media? Would it not have been better played just to keep his mouth shut? If he had done that, most of this would have most likely been left to the tin foil hat people to talk about.

Please note that I am not defending him, nor do I think this verdict should stand, but it just seems strange.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung's Claims of Juror Malice Revealed in Unredacted Filings
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:05 AM EDT
.

Velvin's Revenge. He "redacts' his answers during
Voir dire hiding the fact that a party sued him
causing him to hire attorneys and then go bankrupt.
He has just cost Apple a billion unless Apple can
show that Samsung knew and sat on the information.
The Apple lawyers are ticked because their verdict is
mush. It might have slid by if Velvin was one of the
sheep. But he was the patent-owning foreman who
dismissed all prior art in favor of Apple and then
didn't find for one Samsung patent. He then told the
world about it corroborated by at least one other
juror. Once something
is on the record she will dispatch Velvin's verdict
like she did the preliminary injunction. Both
parties with unlimited staff and cunsultants made a
strategic decision to leave these patent guys on the
jury. Like with all juries it is risky business.
How can one justify a PI with any jury?

-webster-

.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Relieved and dissapointed.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:18 AM EDT
I remember a long time ago an episode of Quincy where a man killed another man
in a DUI. The man was seen drinking just before the accident and just after. In
the end Quicy proved the guy was not drunk ( he had a hematoma from the
accident, a hospital drained it and saved the blood which would have been blood
from the time of the accident, that blood had virtually no alcohol in it ). It
turned out that the penalty for killing a guy by DUI was so much slower then for
example murder.

It sounds like this guy really planned to be on the jury, and may be using the
"I'm an idiot" pose because he knows that it is hard to set aside a
verdict, and to get Samsung to waste their energy in that direction.

I'm relieved because I think it is hard for Judge Koh, and for the CAFC to
ignore this, but this is also dissapointing to me.

This experience caused me to learn how much juror misconduct we are willing to
put up with. Had the picture been as Hogan wanted us to think it was, there
would have been a lot of pressure on the courts to seriously look at the issue.
Especially with a trade war hanging in the balance ( remember Samsung is a
foreign company ).

Frankly it bothers me to hear that it's OK to have drunk jurors, or any other
kind of misbehaving jurors, and I think that this case would have highlighted
the issue.

Mouse the Lucky Dog

[ Reply to This | # ]

Should Samsung try to dig up more dirt on Hogan?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:44 AM EDT
During voir dire he said only held one patent but some reporter dug up that he
actually held two patents, one he obtained himself, and another he bought from
someone. He also failed to mention that both had lapsed through his inaction.

I think someone posted another case he was involved in.

Could this guy be a sort of shady character in and out of legal trouble? If
Samsung looks could it be possible they find other lawsuits? Should they look?

Mouse The Lucky Dog

[ Reply to This | # ]

A bit of a bombshell - Apple will not be happy.
Authored by: SilverWave on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:46 AM EDT
This really could result in a retrial :-)

Wow.



---
RMS: The 4 Freedoms
0 run the program for any purpose
1 study the source code and change it
2 make copies and distribute them
3 publish modified versions

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Roe Conn effect.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 02:18 AM EDT
Roe Conn is a talk show host. All though on occasion he does politics he is not
in the Rush Limbaugh/Rachael Maddow mold of talk show hosts, nostly dealing with
recent movies/tv show episodes/music/Liday Lohan etc. He gained a modicum of
national fame for his daily one hour summary of the OJ trial which was
rebroadcast nationwide.

During the George Ryan ( ex Illinois governor ) trial he received a call from a
guy claiming to have spoken aqbout the case with one of the jurors. It actually
caused a brouhaha in the court room.

I thought of this when you mentioned replying to legal stories.

Mouse the Lucky Dog

[ Reply to This | # ]

FRAND interpretation
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 02:22 AM EDT
I think the way FRAND has been interpreted so far in MS vs Motorola is more
practical than what you're suggesting. The case is proving that FRAND is
unworkable (promises to negotiate always are!) and needs to be replaced with a
standing offer or something (eg a promise to not refuse to sell licenses at
$0.50/device or whatever), but the courts are still stuck trying interpret the
current mess.

If a license *isn't* more or less automatically in place what's stopping a
patent holder simply stalling/refusing to negotiate while pressing infringement
claims? That's pretty obviously not consistent with the intent behind FRAND
clauses.

The other issue that keeps coming up is suggesting that only the end result is
required to be FRAND, not the negotiations. But if neither party is under any
obligation to be reasonable in negotiations, how can the result be expected to
be reasonable?

I think a workable interpretation has to require both sides negotiations/offers
to be at least somewhat reasonable - not just the end result - and there does
need to be an license in place from when negotiations start that only gets
revoked whenever a "reasonable" by the patent holder is rejected...
whatever that is. Of course even deciding what's reasonable or not is
incredibly subjective - stuff has to be absolutely off the planet to be clearly
untenable.

I somewhat agree with Motorola that damages shouldn't be limited to FRAND rates
because that creates an incentive to infringe first then negotiate later if you
get called out, but so much patent infringement is accidental/ridiculous that
I'm not sure how workable that is.

I'm pretty sure I'm glad it's not my job to sort it all out though.

[ Reply to This | # ]

ROFL
Authored by: Tufty on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 02:38 AM EDT
Unbelievable. I needed a really good laugh. That is certainly going to set the
cat among the pigeons.

---
Linux powered squirrel.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hearing to get to the bottom of it...
Authored by: Gringo_ on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:21 AM EDT

PJ writes...

If Hogan was on a mission to get back at Seagate, obviously that could tie in to why he felt so urgent about coming up with an aha moment, after the first day's deliberations when he felt, or so he told the media, that the jury was going to go Samsung's way. I think you can see how these two issues could indeed be related to the verdict. I don't know if they are or not; nor do I know if the judge will find it so. But I know she ought to have a hearing to get to the bottom of it. My question, I confess, is will answers to questions be truthful?

I just don't think there will ever be any hearing with the jury or Hogan, and I don't think the "Hogan on a mission to get back at Seagate" will get any traction (it doesn't with me). Instead, I expect the judge will find among Samsung's cards an ace with which to void the verdict, without having to speculate on Hogan's motives. Specifically, Hogan's lack of full disclosure during voir dire and his self-reported teachings to fellow jurors of "incorrect and extraneous legal standards"...

In post-verdict interviews with the media, Mr. Hogan said that he told his fellow jurors an accused device infringes a design patent based on “look and feel”, that an accused device infringes a utility patent unless it is “entirely different”, that a prior art reference could not be invalidating unless that reference was “interchangeable”, and that invalidating prior art must be currently in use. These incorrect and extraneous legal standards had no place in the jury room.

For all these reasons, Mr. Hogan’s conduct during voir dire and jury deliberations must be fully examined in a hearing with all jurors and can be cured only by a grant of new trial.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Perjury perhaps?
Authored by: Kilz on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 06:00 AM EDT
It is clear that Mr. Hogan was not truthful in answering
questions during voir dire. This is part of the court proceedings and I am sure
he was sworn in as all prospective
jurors were.
Could Mr. Hogan now face charges for his actions? This wasnt
just a a little lie but it looks like a plot for revenge.
Surly some district attorney will be looking at this.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Juror Misconduct - Spouse'e memory
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:07 AM EDT
So 19 years ago, a lawyer sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate/Samsung. Then,
after the Samsung/Apple trial ended and Mr. Hogan's comments start making the
papers/internet, this lawyer says to their spouse, "You know, I remember
this guy from a lawsuit 19 years ago."

How unusual is it for an attorney to remember the name of someone on the
opposite side of a lawsuit 19 years earlier?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung's Claims of Juror Misconduct Revealed in Unredacted Filings ~pj
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 08:39 AM EDT
Hogan was asked if he was EVER involved in
A lawsuit ...

he explained that he was once involved in A
lawsuit

Was he ever asked if that was the ONLY lawsuit
he was involved in?

Technically, I don't see a lie otherwise.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Somewhat OT re Exhibit A
Authored by: The Cornishman on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 09:20 AM EDT

In reading the Exhibit A part of ApplevSamsung-1991Ex1.pdf I am reminded of this old saw:

Because it presents the facts in the wrong chronological order.

Why is top-posting a bad idea?

---
(c) assigned to PJ

[ Reply to This | # ]

Somewhat OT re Exhibit A
Authored by: The Cornishman on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 09:46 AM EDT

In reading the Exhibit A part of ApplevSamsung-1991E x1.pdf I am reminded of this old saw:

Because it presents the facts in the wrong chronological order.

Why is top-posting a bad idea?

---
(c) assigned to PJ

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why was it redacted?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 10:50 AM EDT
So, why did Samsung redacted the part about juror misconduct?
Don't they want this information public as it seems to help
their case a lot?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Why no public record search?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 10:54 AM EDT
I am surprised that lawyers for both sides didn't do a simple
public record search of all potentential jurors. Why is this
not routine even in expensive court cases?

[ Reply to This | # ]

My guess - "Knew or should have known"
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 10:57 AM EDT
Apple's defense on this is pretty obvious. They'll argue it's untimely. And
they might prevail on that piece.

There's a reasonable argument here that Samsung's "my wife just
remembered!" argument is as suspicious as the "aha!" moment in
terms of
suspicious fortuitous coincidence. I suspect they'll argue Samsung knew
this all along (or should have if they did their homework). And that, rather
than bring this up earlier, they kept it in their back pocket as a "heads I
win,
tails I use this to get another flip." Even if not, a post-trial discovery
of
something they could have found earlier (I'm sure they'll argue) isn't
compelling. I didn't do my homework isn't grounds for a new trial.

Apple has a lot harder time (and will probably dance around) the whole
"juror deliberately ignored the judge's instructions and induced others to
do
the same" argument. Which given his statements to the press seem hard
to refute, and don't suffer any timeliness issues (Samsung couldn't have
known per-verdict what the jury would do in the jury room)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hogans Employment History
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 11:25 AM EDT
Does anyone else find it strange that Hogan also parsed his employment history
very interestingly.

He said he was hired in the 80's (the note is dated July 1989).

And "laid off" in the 90's (it was July 1991 according to complaint).

Two years seems a pretty short time. His statements implied he was there for
much longer.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung's Claims of Juror Misconduct Revealed in Unredacted Filings ~pj Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 11:42 AM EDT
The jury foreman, Velvin Hogan, failed to answer truthfully during voir dire. Asked by the Court whether “you or a family member or someone very close to you [has] ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?” (Reporter’s Transcript (“RT”) 148:18-21), he disclosed one such lawsuit but failed to disclose two others
I don't get this. If the question is "have you been in a lawsuit", the correct answer is "yes" (with actually naming one being purely optional). It sounds like he was being truthful. If he was asked to name all the lawsuits, or if he named one lawsuit and was then asked "were there any others?", then yeah, he was being untruthful, but the above doesn't claim he was asked any of these things.

[ Reply to This | # ]

If Samsung' lawyers knew Hogan was lying or failed to mention the suit,...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:04 PM EDT
"Were you wondering how Samsung found out about the lawsuit that Hogan
failed to mention in voir dire, the litigation between Seagate and Hogan that
Samsung dug up? Apple was, as I'll show you. You wouldn't believe it if it was
in a movie script. The lawyer who sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in
1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for
Samsung."

If Samsung' lawyers knew Hogan was lying or failed to mention the suit, why
didn't they bring it up earlier?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Unanimity
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:17 PM EDT

The degree to which post-trial interview answers conform with biographical facts, or interpretations of past trial outcomes is irrelevant.

Seems to me that Hogan's deliberation room leadership on the issue of prior art was him interpreting the law and not bringing in evidence from beyond the trial or performing outside investigations. Now, I am troubled by this short-cut that the jury made, but, on the other hand, it was a short-cut that the other seven were quite eager to make. Hogan's post-trial comments describing how the jurors agreed, independently, at the beginning of the trial that Samsung copied Apple and wanted to make Samsung pay is not, on its face, indicative of a pre-trial bias and any assertion that it does overlooks that the other seven jurors did not have a history of Samsung litigation.

Going back to the issue of prior art, if the foreman misled the jury as to the law, then this is addressed via the JMOL motions, where both parties recap and prioritize the evidence and cite law and on-point cases. That this jury ignored instructions and relied on someone other than the Judge to explain the law clearly shows that the jury was not reasonable. The next step, and it's not a trivial one, is for a party to convince the Judge that a reasonable jury would rule differently.

I wrote a few weeks back that I think counsel makes a poor strategic litigation choice when it uses its trial resources to convince the jury to override the patent office. I think the jury will focus on what does the patent say and what how does the technology work. Incidentally, an assertion that a juror is a strong believer in the patent system is not an indicator of bias. In general, that is an assertion that they believe in the law. In particular, as Samsung was cross-suing Apple over patents Samsung owns, its a bias that cuts both ways.

We all have our biases. Mine is that I've been using Macs since 1984 and have a high regard for how innovative design differentiates their products. I also have been affiliated with architectural interior design where world-class designers create furniture for top manufacturers and successful products are knocked off. On the other hand, when the designers I worked with saw a good solution, they incorporated the essence of the design into their work. (Stealing in the Picasso sense: using the past as a guide to the novel future.) Here's what I think will happen. The Judge will first deal with the JMOL motions and generally rule to the benefit of Samsung and the award will be reduced. That will in essence render the question of jury misconduct moot because the court arrived at the correct result. The more Samsung wins, the more moot the issue. I don't see Judge Koh giving the parties a redo. The Appeals Court ordering a retrial? Possible.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hogan obviously does not read Groklaw.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:36 PM EDT
Lets hope nobody tells him about it. It could help him in trying to find a
convincing story.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Patent license
Authored by: tknarr on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:55 PM EDT
And finally, the now-unredacted Exhibit 18 [PDF] to the Pierce Declaration is a letter from Apple to Samsung back in May, claiming that it was already licensed to Samsung's FRAND patents, even though they hadn't yet agreed to a price and hadn't paid anything at all.

I think the idea that the courts are using here is that the FRAND terms require the patent-holder to negotiate a license. It may require the courts to step in and lay down the law on what's fair and reasonable terms, but the patent-holder's already committed to accepting at last some terms. The question wouldn't be whether terms are come to, but only the amount of money involved. So the courts are taking the position that they'll deem some license to have been in place from the beginning, the only question needing to be addressed yet is how big the payment will be and that can always be handled after-the-fact.

We've seen similar logic before, where the courts won't allow an injunction or some sanctions because the only thing at stake is money and that can always be addressed by a judgement and award of that money. To get your relief you have to show damages beyond merely money, or alternatively that the law explicitly says you're entitled to that relief regardless.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Misdirection
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 12:57 PM EDT
The actionable issue is not being truthful in voir dire. That can get Samsung a
new trial.

The part about Hogan being in other suits brings plausible motive for Hogan's
lies, which strengthens the reasoning for a new trial. It is not really
necessary nor important to the point of lying during VD.

Unfortunately, Apple can only oppose this motion around the edges. That is the
only straw Apple has, and it is very short. Somehow, Apple needs to get the
Judge to ignore the lies during VD. They are doing the best they know how with
what they have. And they are very good lawyers, indeed.

-- Alma

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung's Claims of Juror Misconduct Revealed in Unredacted Filings ~pj Updated
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:16 PM EDT
"even though he was specifically asked by the judge, as were all the
prospective jurors, to list all cases any of them was ever involved in as a
witness or a party"
"you can see for yourself in the transcript"

Did you actually read the transcript? The court asked,"THE NEXT QUESTION
IS, HAVE YOU OR A
FAMILY MEMBER OR SOMEONE VERY CLOSE TO YOU EVER
BEEN INVOLVED IN A LAWSUIT..." Hogane replied "In 2008, after my
company went belly up,..."

I want samsung to have a strong case against Apple but the court never asked to
list all cases they just said "have you ever."

Some people are saying that Hogan had replied to the question by saying
"Once, in 2008,..." But the transcript specifically shows that he
never said "once". IMO its going to be really hard to show that Hogan
didnt answer the full truth when the question was designed only asking for one
instance.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I can't get past all the money wasted on Mr. Hogan...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 01:50 PM EDT
I'm trying to wrap my head around all the money spent on this trial from all
sides and it seems it may all go to waste because of one juror's ego. Its
really amazing.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Aha moment...
Authored by: hAckz0r on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 04:13 PM EDT
...was a premeditated psychological ploy on the behalf of Hogan. Strong words, but let me explain.

The jury was overwhelmed with facts with reams of legal documents which they had no comprehension of. The amount of work they would have to do was formidable even for one skilled in the art of the legal system. Each juror would have been asking themselves why they were incapable of having and informed opinion so that they could escape the drudgery set before them.

Hogan of course, with his fictitious 'Aha Moment' displays what appears to be enlightenment, and in essence some presumed 'intellect' as to how to proceed, right when everyone else has no clue where to even start. If they were to simply agree with Hogan then they get a free pass, out from under all the work they see before them. To disagree one must first have an understanding of the facts in order to refute Hogans position. To disagree with Hogan also is to admit one does not understand, and if you do not understand certainly no one will follow. Hogan played the game well, and his little psychological ploy allowed him to steer the jury in any direction he wanted.

---
The Investors IP Law: The future health of a Corporation is measured as the inverse of the number of IP lawsuits they are currently litigating.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hogan's 2008 Case?
Authored by: rsteinmetz70112 on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 04:16 PM EDT
Has anyone been able to locate any information on Hogan's 2008 case?

I know it settled so the record could be very thin. It would be interesting to
compare his description to the filings.

---
Rsteinmetz - IANAL therefore my opinions are illegal.

"I could be wrong now, but I don't think so."
Randy Newman - The Title Theme from Monk

[ Reply to This | # ]

I’m willing to go in front of the judge to tell her...
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 04:43 PM EDT
Is it just me or does that sound contrived? I'm willing to
sell anyone a bridge in New York City!

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hogan's employment?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 04:52 PM EDT
In 2009 and there were three hard drive manufacturers-- Seagate, Samsung and
Western Digital. Thanks to this pseudo merger there are two now: Seagate and
WD.

Hogan might claim, ( He hasn't AFAIK, but some iTrolls have made the claim. )
that he did not know about the pseudomerger between Samsung and Seagate, but
then he would have known that they were competitors.

Wasn't he asked about being employed by competitors during voir dire? IS so
shouldn't he have said Seagate?

Mouse the Lucky Dog

[ Reply to This | # ]

Since when is 1993 "well outside" a 10-year window?
Authored by: SpammersAreScum on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 04:59 PM EDT
Even assuming there was any 10-year window, and apparently there was not, how could anyone think 1993 falls "well outside" of it? No wonder they botched the award math so badly.

---


Don't take life so serious, son. It ain't nohow permanent.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung's Claims of Juror Misconduct Revealed in Unredacted Filings ~pj Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:14 PM EDT
I would call this Hogan's Reality distortion field (HRDF)....

[ Reply to This | # ]

Someone asked "Since when is 1993 "well outside" a 10-year window?"
Authored by: nsomos on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:17 PM EDT
Someone asked "Since when is 1993 "well outside" a 10-year
window?"

Umm ... since 2012 - 1993 is approximately ...
(takes off shoes ... counts on toes)

19 ... yes 19 years.

Yup .. well outside 10.
(Not that there really is a 10 year range limit)

(Note: not posting directly to their post so they
may yet have a chance to delete their post)

[ Reply to This | # ]

Flo won't be covering it
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:21 PM EDT
Per Herr Mueller: 'FOSS Patents won't cover the jury misconduct debate'

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung's Claims of Juror Misconduct Revealed in Unredacted Filings ~pj Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:26 PM EDT
Is there a potential penalty for Juror misconduct especially if it is judged
willful?

Juries should be free from fear of negative consequences from decisions they
make but the potential costs and consequences from misconduct are massive. In
this case the direct financial costs of a new trial alone will be huge let alone
potential indirect costs and consequences.

It may seem vindictive but to me the juror should be charged with perjury or
attempting to pevert the course of justice if the actions are judged
deliberate.In the UK this has a maximum sentence of life inprisonment. There
must be some consequence for attempting to damage an individual or company in
such a significant way.

[ Reply to This | # ]

The Honorable Lucy Koh could have done a better job
Authored by: cjk fossman on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 05:32 PM EDT
Koh: UM-HMM

Hogan: BUT LIKE I SAID, WE SETTLED THAT -- BECAUSE OF
DOCUMENTATION I HAD, WE WERE ABLE TO SETTLE IT OUT OF COURT
AND THEN WE WENT BACK TO COURT ONE LAST TIME FOR THE
DISMISSAL PAPERWORK.

KOH: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.

<< Right here she drops the ball. These words sound like a
dismissal. It would have been so much better had she then
said, "Any others?"

<< But she goes on to the next juror:

MR R..., I THINK YOU RAISED YOUR CARD?

So Hogan, in spite of his improper conduct, may get a free
pass.

Even so, the result was clearly excessively prejudicial to
Samsung and Hogan violated his oath to tell the whole truth.

Fortunately, he seems bent on destroying his credibility by
fabricating statements.

Apparently he is not as bright as the three or four
anonymous posters who would absolve Hogan of lying because
of this unfortunate exchange.

[ Reply to This | # ]

There is ALWAYS a Velvin Hogan in the woodwork.
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:07 PM EDT
I have to admit, I am now a bit amused by this farce. Readers who do contract
design work surely recognize ole Velvin... There is always one of him in the
engineering department screwing up the project with bizarre engineering theories
and out of spec unimplementable design ideas. Velvin just happens to work on a
grander scale than most.

Anyway, don't be too hard on Velvin. I do not personally believe that there was
any malice on his part and that he sincerely believes that he did his best to
deliver to us ungrateful mere mortals a flash of divinely inspired lucidity on
patent and copyright law. Velvin is... well just Velvin, that's the way he is
wired.

I am a bit puzzled though, given the stakes involved and the resources available
today, he wasn't quietly vetted better as the trial went on. Then again, maybe
he was and that is the cat and mouse game being played now between Apple and
Samsung. After all, he could be either side's ace in the hole if the trial went
against them.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Hogan's '10 year' thing - More 'I know the law'?
Authored by: calris74 on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:17 PM EDT
I think that Hogan has decided that the judge's question
carried an implied exclusion based on some kind of 'Limit of
Liabilities' (maybe the term of his individual bankruptcy?)

So when the judge said 'ever' he heard 'within the time frame
of statue of limitations'...

So, more of Hogan bringing in his own personal views of law
into the court rather than leaving it all at the door on the
way in

[ Reply to This | # ]

How did they find out?
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:19 PM EDT
"The attorney who sued Mr. Hogan on Seagate’s behalf is the husband of a Quinn Emanuel partner." (See Declaration of Susan R. Estrich, paragraph 3: "Diane M. Doolittle, a partner in the Silicon Valley office of Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, is married to Michael F. Grady, the attorney who filed the complaint, Exhibit A, against Velvin Hogan on behalf of Seagate.")

So that is how they found out. But the operative question is, when?

This is jumping to conclusions.

It is entirely possible that the spouse does not have the slightest recollection of a (for him) minor case 19 years ago.

Instead it is plausible that Samsung put detectives on Hogan as soon they found something was fishy. It will be trivial for a detective to dig up the reference by following leads from the public records. There are even programs that will do such things.

Heck, it is possible someone found the court case, then entered the lawyers into LinkedIn and found out he was connected by the spouse of a co-worker.

[ Reply to This | # ]

the law as the judge instructed
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 07:44 PM EDT
the law as the Judge instructed ... and not the law as he
remembered this assumed 10 year statue of limitations
regarding any past history. Quite arrogant on his part to
second guess the Court.

[ Reply to This | # ]

I used to examine my conscience before I posted comments about Mr. Hogan
Authored by: artp on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 09:58 PM EDT
I used think hard before I wrote comments about Mr. Hogan. I
worried that I might be saying something unfair about him. I
didn't want to say anything that wasn't based on fact, or at
least a rational deduction from fact.

After reading this, it seems that I didn't have to worry.
Truth is indeed stranger than fiction. The truth is coming
out, and Mr. Hogan is still giving interviews dispensing his
brand of fiction.

Could anybody in their wildest dreams have come up with a
plot for a book like this? It would have been rejected
faster than you could say "Jack Sprat". The characters would
just be too unbelievable.

But it is becoming all too clear that Hogan went into this
with an agenda. The circumstances just scream bias.

He has hidden information from the voir dire process. Let
all the anon posters suggest that he is innocent in this -
it doesn't matter. [I would be surprised if there weren't at
least a few Apple astro-turfers or fanbois in the recent
influx of Hogan-defenders.] In the end, it only matters what
the judge decides. But if I were a betting man, I would
stick with the blog that called it - Groklaw.

His story is not consistent. He is starting to contradict
himself in small ways. He is rewriting history. And he is
misquoting the judge's instructions - a judge who has
already shown major irritation with both sides. I would not
get on the wrong side of Judge Koh if I were Mr. Hogan.

Not being truthful in voir dire.
Hiding an association with a Samsung competitor/partner.
Ignoring the judge's instructions on changing laws.
Ignoring the judge's instructions on bringing in outside
evidence.
Going outside the scope of the jury instructions to send a
message to the industry on IP rights.

And his character flaws are becoming glaringly obvious. I
almost feel sorry for him. But if he didn't want to be
picked over this way, he should have kept quiet. Yet he
still comments in public, and appears to seek the publicity.
These are not the actions of a man without an agenda. They
are the actions of a man with some serious problems.

The judge will sort out some of those problems. The rest
are up to Mr. Hogan.

---
Userfriendly on WGA server outage:
When you're chained to an oar you don't think you should go down when the galley
sinks ?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Samsung's Claims of Juror Misconduct Revealed in Unredacted Filings ~pj Updated 2Xs
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 10:00 PM EDT
oh i beleive the guy lied and probably had intent to screw over the company but prove it.

I think you are confusing a legal proceeding with a mathematical exercise. It's the judge that will have to rule on this, and she is perfectly capable of using common sense and the law, rather than mathematical or gramatical rigor, to reach a conclusion

when you ask some half ass question like this lawyer did then you screwed up. as a lawyer you should be covering all of your bases in a question to where there are no loop holes to get out and this lawyer left a big one bc hogan could easily argue that he answered the question in what he believed was an appropriate answer. not to mention that the lawyer didnt follow up to ask if there were any other instances which points more in favor of hogan thinking he answered all of what was asked by the question. so insult however you like, but do yourself a favor, if you ever practice law, and understand that the design of your question means everything.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Totally Fascinating
Authored by: Anonymous on Wednesday, October 03 2012 @ 11:31 PM EDT

This reads more like a bad television legal drama than real life.

It will however be interesting to follow, and it is a real learning experience.
It
is also turning into an incredible mess, that is not going to be to the
advantage of either party (both companies are going to be mired in
litigation for even longer).

The major question now is will Samsung get a new trial? I think that they
should get a new trial, but will they?

Wayne
http://madhatter.ca

[ Reply to This | # ]

Taking 'The Consumer' hostage
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 12:23 AM EDT
The Chairman of the Federal Trade Commission, after an initially supportive response to Microsoft’s announcement, released a statement expressing his belief that the right standard is a default of “off” for “do-not-track,” recognizing the harm to consumers that Microsoft’s decision could create.

(my emphasis)

Hmmm. Not being tracked and subsequently targeted by predatory advertisers could harm the consumer.

That must be a slip. Surely they meant harm to the advertisers...

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • Ups - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 12:41 AM EDT
    • Ups - Authored by: PJ on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 01:23 PM EDT
      • Ups - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 06:11 PM EDT
  • Disagree completely - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 11:08 AM EDT
Some useful Links...
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 10:05 AM EDT
There are some great free resources out there that provide a
good overview and references for Juror Misconduct cases.

http://www.ajs.org/jc/juries/jc_decision_misconduct_kinds.asp
http://www.rotlaw.com/legal-library/what-is-jury-misconduct/

Skewed towards looking at Connecticut but still a good
discussion:
http://www.gallagher-lawfirm.com/articles/jurymisconduct.htm

[ Reply to This | # ]

I came across a chap who VH reminds me of
Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 01:18 PM EDT
This chap (not VH) was smart (not the smartEST - certainly above average) but
everything he said had a little bit either added or missing or sublty inaccurate
- so as to give him an advantage.
Dealing with him and dealing with the people he managed to pursuade was absolute
murder because he came across as so plausible.

He would have gotten away with a lot more had it not been for his ego. The size
of a house, he didn't know when to keep quiet. He ended up talking himself into
a courtroom.

I worry about VH. Ive said on here and I'll say it again.
I really hope this cat knows what he's doing because there are a lot of folks
who are now *really* motivated to examine everything he utters.

[ Reply to This | # ]

meh
Authored by: nola on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 03:17 PM EDT
Samsung claims that there was jury misconduct. Allowing that as true for the
sake of discussion, is that Apple's problem? Did Apple have any hand in
selecting this or any other juror?

The answer is clearly "No". Samsung, Apple and the Court did juror
selection based upon what they knew at the time selection was done.

Remembering that this was a civil trial, rather than a criminal one
requiring a unanimous decision from the jury, it might be possible
to re-evaluate the jury decision reducing the number of jurors by
one - Hogan. This is dangerous though because he was the
foreman and seem clearly to have had a major influence over the other jurors
(never a good idea).


So maybe we're looking at a new trial. Well -- both Apple and Samsung
presented significant evidence during the previous trial. If it come to pass,
they will do so again. And I expect that Apple will probably do better in the
do-over.

From a financial standpoint, Samsung would probably do better to argue
down damages. If it insists upon a new trial and loses then triple damages are
are a certainty.

So, ladies and gentlemen, take your dice in hand and prepare to roll ...

[ Reply to This | # ]

  • meh - Authored by: Anonymous on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 04:47 PM EDT
  • doubtful - Authored by: janolder on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 05:16 PM EDT
  • meh - Authored by: cjk fossman on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 05:44 PM EDT
    • meh - Authored by: nola on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 08:37 PM EDT
  • meh - Authored by: Wol on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 06:04 PM EDT
The elephant in the room everybody ignores
Authored by: janolder on Thursday, October 04 2012 @ 05:09 PM EDT
As a European who spent 15 years in the States it is blatantly obvious to me that US juries don't and can't work properly for certain types of cases. Sure, a jury can probably fairly reliably look in the eye of an alleged juvenile thief and make the right decision - even though the shockingly high number of released death row inmates makes me question even that. But make the right decision in a case like this? I don't think so. Even the Oracle v Google verdict was marred by the jury being quite confused by nine lines of code (really four lines with the rest blank or consisting of a curly brace).

I can't speak for other European countries, however in Germany the system is quite simple: Judges decide cases, there is no jury. Often it is a single judge, but in complex or important cases there is a panel of judges. Courts are also quite specialized, unlike in the US. Very rarely do I read about questionable decisions from the courts here and never about something as grossly wrong as this.

Folks with decent memories will remember SCO's brief tussle with German courts. It took three weeks and a few hundred Euros for a German judge to dismiss SCO's case for lack of evidence. In the US? Seven years and 100 million dollars.

Folks with amazing memories will remember the trial of the assailant of Monica Seles. No doubt the outcome of the trial (two years probation due to severe mental impairment; upheld on appeal) was unsatisfying, but by German standards it was not a miscarriage of justice. Germany does not take revenge on the insane, but a jury might well have in contravention of the law.

[ Reply to This | # ]

A lie is a lie is a lie...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 04:42 AM EDT
Hogan says:
“I answered every question the judge asked me”
and that may (or may not) be true, but notice that he DIDN'T say "I answered, with honesty, every question the judge asked me."

Notice also that he attempts to justify his dishonesty by trying to shift the attention to Samsung:
and Samsung “had every opportunity to question me,” Hogan said. He added that he’s surprised Samsung didn’t know about the history it’s now citing given the relationship the lawyer Samsung refers to in its filing has with another lawyer at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan LLP, the firm representing the company. Hogan said yesterday’s filing has him wondering whether Samsung “let me in the jury just to have an excuse for a new trial if it didn’t go in their favor.”
So. I'm just trying to understand here. Whether Samsung knew about it or not, what does that have to do with him lying to a judge?

He's obviously not saying that Samsung paid him to lie to the judge, but he sure seems to act as if Samsung is somehow (magically, I guess) responsible for his own, personal choices.

Is this guy like 3 years old or something? Why aren't people put in jail for this foolishness?

[ Reply to This | # ]

Bad Apple, nice guy Samsung? I don't agree
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 06 2012 @ 08:35 AM EDT
Here's an example of how nice poor little downtrodden
Samsung is :

http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=MTIwMDU

https://lists.tizen.org/pipermail/general/2012-
October/001074.html

Sound like totally arrogant sew and sews to me...
I say good on Apple for finally smacking them down for
slavishly copying the iPhone

I am unable to create an account due to it being disabled by
the web master of this site.

[ Reply to This | # ]

Groklaw © Copyright 2003-2013 Pamela Jones.
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners.
Comments are owned by the individual posters.

PJ's articles are licensed under a Creative Commons License. ( Details )