|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 09:24 PM EDT |
Since Apple referenced 2022, not 2025, can you get 2022? Would it be worth
it?
Note that in 2026, Samsung asked for 2022 to be purged, but in 2039, Judge Koh
refused to allow that.
Justia didn't seem to be caught up that far.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- @PJ: Get 2022? - Authored by: PJ on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 10:15 PM EDT
- Thanks! - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 10:49 PM EDT
- I can just hear Michael Moriarty. - Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 10:50 PM EDT
- Gawk - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 07:11 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 12:11 AM EDT |
Does indeed say that Samsung's counsel discovered the
bankruptcy (thanks to a LexisNexis search) on July 30, the
day of voir dire.
Apple's argument is that Samsung had a duty to order the
bankruptcy file during voir dire. I'm not clear on what this
would have accomplished, given that when they did order the
file, it took a week to arrive. Can you move to dismiss a
juror in mid-trial?[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
- 2022, para 9 - Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 12:40 AM EDT
| |
| Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 12:28 AM EDT |
The Zeller declaration specifies Samsung did not know before the
verdict. That declaration was made Oct 1st, while the representation Mr. Jacobs
makes above was made Oct 19th. Samsung did not remain silent. Should we assume
Mr. Jacobs did not keep himself fully informed of written representations to the
court or is he bringing the veracity of Mr. Zeller's declaration into question?
The lack of a paragraph 9 in the refiled Dkt. No 2022 (as 2025) is particularly
worrisome. It appears to be a citation of fact not found in and contrary to the
record.
I think you are going a little too far there. It was true
that Samsung knew about the bankruptcy earlier on and could have followed up on
that. Once the verdict came in and Hogan started talking publicly, they somewhat
desperately went on a fishing expedition. Fortunately for them they caught
something. There isn't any reason they couldn't have gone on that fishing
expedition earlier; they just had little reason to do it. I don't have any idea
why you would say, "Should we assume Mr. Jacobs did not keep himself fully
informed of written representations to the court or is he bringing the veracity
of Mr. Zeller's declaration into question?" There was no indication of that,
even before we knew that paragraph 9 existed. At that point, we didn't know when
Samsung learned of the bankruptcy.
Maybe we'll see a corrected
objection? Corrected, it might actually fall within the page count.
The page count issue had nothing to do with this.
While we
are at it, Apple also made the point that during voir dire, Hogan wasn't
specifically asked if he had been in any other cases besides the one he
mentioned. Technically that's true, so they may have a point, but I don't know
how good of a point it is. During the questioning, Judge Koh was phrasing things
as if she thought they could have only happened once. It was actually rather
poor questioning on her part. She even had to
have someone correct her when it got to patents:[The court:]
OKAY. NOW, RAISE YOUR HAND, PLEASE, IF
YOU HAVE EVER APPLIED FOR A PATENT, A
COPYRIGHT, A
TRADEMARK OR TRADE DRESS REGISTRATION.
ALL RIGHT. SO WE HAVE THREE
HANDS
RAISED. IF YOU WOULD -- OH, FOUR. ALL RIGHT.
WELL, SINCE THE MICROPHONE IS
DOWN THERE,
WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD PLEASE AND GIVE THAT TO
MR.
CHIU.
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I WORK FOR -- I WORK
FOR THE NATIONAL
SEMICONDUCTOR BEFORE AND THEY WERE
ACQUIRED BY TEXAS INSTRUMENTS, AND I FILED
PATENTS
FOR THE COMPANY.
THE COURT: OKAY. AND WERE YOU AN
INVENTOR ON
THAT PATENT?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: WAS A PATENT
ISSUED?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: AND WITHOUT
SPECIFICS, WHAT
WAS THE GENERAL TECHNOLOGY?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: IT IS THE
INTEGRATED
CIRCUIT RELATED.
THE COURT: INTEGRATED CIRCUIT
DESIGN?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: OKAY. HOW LONG AGO
WAS THAT?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: I THINK FROM 3 TO 15
YEARS. I HAVE SEVERAL
PATENTS.
THE COURT: YOU HAVE SEVERAL. AND WERE
THEY ALL WHILE YOU WERE
EMPLOYED AT NATIONAL
SEMICONDUCTOR?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE
COURT: AND ARE THEY ALL RELATED TO
INTEGRATED CIRCUIT
DESIGN?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR: YES.
THE COURT: ALL RIGHT. AND --
OKAY. ALL
RIGHT. AND THEY WERE ROUGHLY 15 YEARS AGO?
PROSPECTIVE JUROR:
YES, FROM 3 TO 15
YEARS.
THE COURT: 3 TO 15 YEARS. OKAY. SO
VERY
RECENTLY. Notice how Judge Koh kept speaking in singular at first.
Of course, the fact that the prospective jurors did say how many patents they
had indicated that they knew they shouldn't just mention one and stop. I looked
for prospective jurors saying that they had been in multiple cases, but the PDF
has several pages missing, so that's not possible. There were two different news
reports in which Hogan gave two different excuses as to why he didn't mention
the Seagate lawsuit. In one case, he did say that the judge didn't
specifically ask about more than one court case, but he also said that he had
sued Seagate, which wasn't true. In the other case, he said that the question
was limited to the last ten years, which wasn't true.
Apple may get some
mileage out of saying that Hogan didn't necessarily understand that he was
supposed to mention more than one case. For that to work, Judge Koh would pretty
much have to admit that she did a poor job of asking the questions, so I don't
know how how likely that would be. And yes, I think it was obvious enough. Since
she was asking specific questions about the case he mentioned, she would have
wanted to ask the same sort of questions about any other cases, so he needed to
mention them.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
