IANAL! The following is just my humble opinion!
I have been one of
those speaking out against Hogan's apparent performance. I say apparent,
because his actual performance has not yet been proven and I can only go based
on his performance as he has described it publicly.
First: I don't have a
problem with him making decisions based on his own knowledge so long as that
knowledge is applied to the facts available for his own decision. I also
recognize there is a fine line about which of that knowledge is acceptable and
which is not and as a result my belief as outlined could disqualify me from
serving as a Juror. My disqualification based on that would be appropriate if
that was the decision made.
I do have a problem when he introduces
"facts" that were not presented in the Court to the other members of the
Jury!
Second: I do have a problem with him presenting his vision of how
the Law is to be applied and guiding the rest of the Jury to that
application.
Can a Jury Legally decide a given patent is invalid?
Absolutely Yes! It is part of the Law.
Should a Jury apply such a ruling
in a given case? That depends. If it's a case where:
There was agreement
that the defendant would not question the validity of the patent at
issue
No evidence of invalidity was presented during trial
The
question was not presented to the Jury in the Instructions
Then no! A Jury
should not decide the validity/invalidity of the patent.
Does a Jury have
the power to "overrule the Law" in their decisions? Yup! Just as Society has
the power to invoke a rebellion and remove the current Leaders from Office
through violent means. Such a power should not be exercised except in the most
extreme of circumstances - Again: my humble opinion.
Hogan - in guiding
the Jury into finding for damages sufficient to be a deterrent acted clearly
against the instructions that were provided to the Jury. This is but one
example where he decide what the Law was to be applied overruling the Judge's
instructions on the Law. An example where he presented "his expert opinion"
where the Judge was not allowed to examine the relevance to the case, where the
attorney's were not allowed to examine and present counter-evidence.
That
is the problem so many of us have with what Hogan did.
For a Juror to
keep in mind that the USPTO is not the ultimate authority is proper. For said
Juror to then present "evidence" to the other Juror's that was not presented
during the trial - that is what Hogan did which was so very wrong.
RAS[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
| 
