|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 03:25 AM EDT |
He said he wanted to punish Samsung - send them a message. He
wasn't trying to be fair or following jury rules.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 02:58 PM EDT |
Finding some structure to help the jury deliberate is part
of the foreman's job. They are expected to use their
knowledge and experience to do this. What the jurors are not
allowed to do is introduce anything from their own
experiences -- evidence, law or otherwise -- that does not
fully agree with what's in the jury instructions because the
legal parties would not have had the chance to object to it.
Hogan's "what if this were my patent?" approach is a matter
of methodology and mental process, the court generally
cannot call this into question. Hogan's "it's not prior art
because it's not interchangeable" is a characteristic
misstatement of law because it doesn't agree with what was
explicitly included in the jury instructions. Introducing
extraneous law like that as objective fact rather than
opinion is misconduct and can result in a mistrial.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 06:54 PM EDT |
How did he convince the other jurors to ignore the jury
instructions? [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- how did he - Authored by: PJ on Sunday, September 09 2012 @ 06:55 PM EDT
|
|
| Authored by: PJ on Tuesday, September 11 2012 @ 10:30 AM EDT |
He also doesn't know that there is a difference,
a significant one, between what is required to
defend a patent before the USPTO and what is
required to demonstrate validity in a court of
law.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
