|
|
|
| Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, December 18 2012 @ 02:48 PM EST |
Briefly put, your facts are wrong, and your conclusion (even
if your facts were right!) is wrong as well.
Going through-
Concerning Hogan: Did he or did he not say to the media that
they wanted to
"punish" Samsung?
Hogan:
[[t]he jury] "wanted to send a message to the industry at
large that patent infringing is not the right thing to do,
not just Samsung," and that the "message [they] sent
was not just a slap on the wrist."
So, no.
Concerning the governing case law: does it or does it not
explicitly state that
the jury is not to impose punitive damages in this type of
case?
The jury did not impose punitive damages. Only the judge may
award punitive damages. So, no.
Therefore, is this a problem?: Given the above, no.
Concerning Hogan: Did he or did he not state to the media
that he was not
expected to disclose old cases? - Yes
Did this case pose a conflict of interest problem for
Samsung? - No. If it did, they would have asked him about it
in voir dire, when he disclosed his long-ago relationship
with Seagate. It is doubtful that Hogan was even aware of
the relationship, and Samsung didn't care during voir dire.
Concerning the judge: did she or did she not ask another
juror about an "old" case in Hogan's hearing? - Yes
Concerning the judge: did she or did she not ask Hogan about
a detail from an
"old" case? - Yes
Therefore, does this not imply that Hogan failed to disclose
a case that he
should have disclosed - No
Therefore, did Hogan improperly influence the jury - No.
This is why I am ignoring your other questions. He is part
of the jury. He, by definition, can't improperly influence
it.
Please explain how my personal views change any one of the
facts above. And
please explain how the facts above do not warrant a new
trial.
As I went through, the jury is the ultimate black box. There
is well-developed precedent in the area. There is a nigh-
unrebuttable presumption that a jury verdict is sancrosanct.
See Tanner for details as to how egregious or unfair jury
conduct can be and still be upheld.
available at:
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?
case=6212097998214052620&q=tanner+606(b)&hl=en&as_sdt=2,10
There are limited exceptions. These primarily deal with
things that are extrinsic to the jury (bribery, extortion)
or facts that the jury consults (bibles, medical
dictionaries). However, you cannot stop jurors from their
own knowledge. That's why both parties took calculated risk
in letting jurors with patent knowledge serve on the jury.
What you can't do is inquire as to how a jury arrived at
their verdict.
This is the difference between a priori and post hoc
reasoning. Samsung is, doubtless, happy that some of Apple's
claims against them (such as anti-trust and breach of
contract) were dismissed by the jury. It is extremely hard
to say that this juror was so biased that he hated Samsung,
got himself onto the jury to screw them, and then let them
go on some claims.
The law doesn't let litigants go back into the jury
deliberations to figure out how they did it. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|
