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
What Judge Koh doesn't mention. | 107 comments | Create New Account
Comments belong to whoever posts them. Please notify us of inappropriate comments.
What Judge Koh doesn't mention.
Authored by: Gringo_ on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 10:55 AM EST

Was that mentioned in Samsung's motion to compel Apple to reveal when it learned about the jury foreman not answering fully in voir dire? The judges ruling only addressed Samsung's motion to compel, not other motions made by Samsung.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What Judge Koh doesn't mention.
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, November 09 2012 @ 01:43 PM EST
That's because this is an order on the Samsung motion to compel directed at
Apple (which addresses just Apple's knowledge of the claimed misrepresentations
in voir dire), not an order on Samsung's motion for JMOL. The alleged jury-room
misconduct is relevant to the JMOL (which addresses all of the alleged jury
misconduct and seeks a remedy for it), but not the motion to compel (which is
just seeking information relating to one instance of alleged jury misconduct,
and essentially setting up that portion of the JMOL.)

I suspect, also, that Judge Koh may want to deal with the whole voir dire issue
(not just the motion to compel on that issue) first, because if the voir dire
issue is sufficient to grant Samsung demand for a new trial, she can resolve the
JMOL without hauling the rest of the jurors in and conducting an inquiry into
what actually went on the jury room. While many have (rightly, IMO)
characterized the allegations of jury-room misconduct as the more serious
allegations, they are also the ones the court will most want to avoid having to
address, since US courts strongly prefer to avoid inquiries into how juries
reached their verdicts.

[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]

What Judge Koh doesn't mention.
Authored by: PJ on Monday, November 12 2012 @ 10:11 PM EST
She does. You missed it. This is, she wrote,
important to straighten out before she rules
on Samsung's JMOL motion. That's the motion that
lists all the other problems with the jury's
conduct.

[ 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 )