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

Gear

Groklaw Gear

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


You won't find me on Facebook


Donate

Donate Paypal


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
The pdf linked to above has a wealth of exhibits... | 249 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
Link to the article
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 04:34 PM EDT
I meant to link to the earlier Groklaw article.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

A fun assumption blown out of the water :(
Authored by: tknarr on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 06:11 PM EDT

Either that or they decided that they ought to disclose the relationship up front, before Apple tried to use it to discredit them.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The exact words...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 06:39 PM EDT

Samsung had no knowledge of Velvin Hogan’s litigation against Seagate until after the jury verdict was rendered in this case. Samsung did not know until after the verdict that Mr. Hogan had ever been in litigation with Seagate, had been a defendant to claims brought by Seagate or had filed his own claims against Seagate.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

The pdf linked to above has a wealth of exhibits...
Authored by: Anonymous on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 07:27 PM EDT

The exhibits include a variety of news article on the jury foreman. Readers comments are included with one of them, and they certainly have a poor opinion of Apple and strong feelings that the judgement. Just a sample...

Apple will soon sit down with their emotional pride, and then all the hypes about owning an Iphone and Ipad will soon fade away quietly. Remember the Blackberry? Remember the hypes about owning a blackberry? This goes to show you nothing stay on top forever. If Apple now going to start suing other companies to stay on top, then it's safe to say the end is near for Apple.
- Michael Braveman , New York, United States of America
30/8/2012 10:03
Rating 15

'We have always been shameless about stealing great ideas' - Steve Jobs. So apparently its ok to take ideas from others as long as youre Apple. Seems to be true from their track record. WRT the case, IMO: 1.
How did Apple get approval 4 these overly broad patents in 1st place? 2. Prior art exists for all patents in case. E.g. Mitsubishi Diamond Touch (2001?) 3. Unfairness apparent in post trial jury comments (e.g. Ilagan, Hogan) who stated they had decided on trial day 1 Samsung were guilty. Hogan also stated 'We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful..' after instructions state damages should not punish infringer (2x no less). 4. Experts surprised at speed of deliberation. 700 complex Qs, about 1.8min per q was 1 estimate! Then inconsistency awarding damages Stinks of jury didnt do job. I hope Samsung overturn or win appeal. Apple arent innovators, they are anti-competitive acquirer's of others ideas. I smell anti-trust lawsuit brewing :)
- mick , london, 29/8/2012 22:16
Rating 17

Apple = Sith empire.
- uberspacemonkey , London, 29/8/2012 14:11
Rating 31

I knew it the moment I read that Apple won the case. It was biased as it was on American turf and that too in California... are you kidding me ! Apple has never "invented" anything. They saw something... and bettered it. Its called creativity and NOT invention which Apple claims ! What a farce.
- Nilesh , London, 29/8/2012 12:36
Rating 34

Biased jury and court now exposed for what they are - a total sham biased towards an American company.
- Mowdiwarp , Huddersfield, 29/8/2012 12:01
Rating 34

This is an appalling revelation! Anything that even has the potential to inject bias into litigation involving a jury should be summarily halted! This has the potential to completely undermine the credibility of due process in this case, or any other under similar conditions! What I would like to know is how in the world was this not spotted at jury selection? The verdict is unsafe regardless of the circumstances and should immediately be set aside by the judge next month! So as much as I admire Apple technology and their wonderful cutting edge products I would strongly advise them not to count their chickens just yet!
- Christopher Smithers , London UK, 29/8/2012 12:00
Rating 34

As a consumer, this is not healthy for the news for the technology and marketing development. It will make huge bad influence on all platforms (Ex, Technology, pricewise, quality wise). This is a bad example for electronic world. So consumers are boycotts the APPLE products and campaign for the Apple products boycott. If the consumers are boycott the APPLE products, that’s good indicator for technology world.
- Luther , Romford, Essex, 29/8/2012 12:00
Rating 27

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

A fun assumption blown out of the water :(
Authored by: dio gratia on Saturday, October 20 2012 @ 08:18 PM EDT

And to be clear the Zeller declaration states:

3. Samsung had no knowledge of Velvin Hogan’s litigation against Seagate until after the jury verdict was rendered in this case. Samsung did not know until after the verdict that Mr. Hogan had ever been in litigation with Seagate, had been a defendant to claims brought by Seagate or had filed his own claims against Seagate.
Mr. Jacobs does a wonderful case of bait and switch, that any lack of a fair trial by an impartial jury is Samsung's own fault:
1. Samsung waived these objections

Samsung accuses Mr. Hogan of “fail[ing] to answer truthfully during voir dire” by not mentioning a dispute with Seagate in 1993 and a related bankruptcy. (Mot. at 2.) Samsung waived these objections because it knew of or could have discovered the alleged “lies” before the verdict. “‘[A] defendant cannot learn of juror misconduct during the trial, gamble on a favorable verdict by remaining silent, and then complain in a post-verdict motion that the verdict was prejudicially influenced by that misconduct.’” United States v. Bolinger, 837 F.2d 436, 438-39 (11th Cir. 1988); Robinson v. Monsanto Co., 758 F.2d 331, 335 (8th Cir. 1985) (objection waived if basis “might have been discovered during voir dire”); see McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v. Greenwood, 464 U.S. 548, 550 n.2 (1984) (party cannot attack verdict based on unchallenged voir dire answer that it “thought to be factually incorrect”). Mr. Hogan disclosed during voir dire that he had “worked for Seagate” (Tr. 191:20-192:2), and Samsung also knew that day that Mr. Hogan failed to disclose that he “declared bankruptcy in 1993.” (Dkt. No. 2022 ¶ 9.) If Samsung’s recent acquisition of a 9.6% stake in Seagate (Dkt. No. 2013-4) were so important that bias toward Seagate could create bias against Samsung, it should have asked Mr. Hogan about Seagate. Had Samsung done so, or ordered the bankruptcy file—the exact step it took only after it received the unfavorable jury verdict—it could have discovered the Seagate complaint. (Dkt. No. 2022 ¶ 4.) By doing nothing, Samsung waived its objections. Robinson, 758 F.2d at 334-35 (no new trial where juror disclosed employer and plaintiff failed to ask about dealings between employer and defendant).

There's a couple of things wrong with that. The court did ask the perspective juror about involvement in court actions and he did not answer truthfully by omission, in the press citing a supposed 10 year relevancy rule post verdict. You could note that it is a function of the court to insure a fair jury trial under Amendments 5 and 7,Rule 47(a) makes it clear that attorney oral questioning is discretionary (see the Ninth Circuit Manual on Jury Trial Procedures, Attorney Participation in Voir Dire). Shifting the burden to Samsung referring to the perspective juror's alleged "lies" is nothing but emotional appeal.

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.

The Robinson case cited involves a motion to overturn a jury verdict by the plaintiff which failed on appeal. As to whether or not Robinson's "right to a peremptory challenge was prejudicially impaired" "Robinson failed to demonstrate that Jecha deliberately concealed any information or that the alleged business association in any way indicated Jecha's probable bias in favor of Monsanto with regard to a claim of racial discrimination" 758 F.2d at 335. Samsung appears to contend that by concealing that Seagate had enjoined suit against the perspective juror in an adversarial proceeding, a bias is foregone with respect to Samsung's ownership stake in Seagate. Robinson doesn't appear to be the correct case to challenge that contention, instead hinging on the lack of bias being evident.

You could wonder if Apple is going for volume and not accuracy here. Is there a built in assumption the court will not diligently peruse the record or citations? Maybe we'll see a corrected objection? Corrected, it might actually fall within the page count.

In seems unlikely the court would find that Samsung waived objections. Some of the remaining objections appear likely to fail for building on this faulty foundation.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

Hearsay != knowing
Authored by: Anonymous on Sunday, October 21 2012 @ 05:56 AM EDT
My guess is both are right. The relationship probably brought up the issue, that
lead to the investigation that resulted in "knowing" in the legal
sense.

I also guess the lawyers partner couldn't do much other than mention they
thought Hogan had been in a lawsuit with Seagate without breaking attorney
client privilege, so it would have to have then been investigated to go from
hearsay to knowing.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

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 )