Nov 09 AT 3:46 PM Nick Gray 14 Comments

Judge Lucy Koh agrees to hear juror misconduct arguments in Apple vs. Samsung case

apple-glass

It looks like Apple’s patent victory over Samsung earlier this year may have another issue to content with. After the United States Patent and Trademark Office decided to tentatively invalidate Apple’s infamous rubber-banding patent (Patent No. 7,469,381) a few weeks back, Judge Lucy Koh has now agreed to look into allegations that the outcome of the court case was improperly influenced by Velvin Hogan – the jury foreman.

The Court will consider the questions of whether the jury foreperson concealed information during voir dire (jury selection), whether any concealed information was material, and whether any concealment constituted misconduct. An assessment of such issues is intertwined with the question of whether and when Apple had a duty to disclose the circumstances and timing of its discovery of information about the foreperson.Judge Lucy Koh

During the jury selection process, Vevin Hogan neglected to disclose that he may have a bias towards Samsung due to his employment history. While Samsung was not aware of the issue until after the final ruling on the case had been made, there is some evidence that suggests Apple’s legal team may have known about it.

It’s hard to say what the final outcome will be, but it’s certainly clear that the Apple vs. Samsung case isn’t over yet.

Via: The Verge

Source: Court Order

Nick is a tech enthusiast who has a soft spot for HTC and its devices. He started HTCsource.com (the first HTC blog) back in 2007 and later joined the Android and Me family in the summer of 2010.

    Most Tweeted This Week

  • acey_zero

    Seems like there were a lot of other issues besides the concealed information… Like everything the jury foreman said later in interviews about how he decided himself that the apple patents were valid based on non-existent patent rules that he made up and used to convince the rest of the jury. And what he said about using the damages to punish Samsung and send a warning, though they were explicitly not supposed to do this.

    Not to mention how incredibly fast the jury came to a decision, and how they initially awarded millions of dollars of damages to apple on a couple devices that they had found not to infringe.

    I wonder if all of these issues are going to be considered as well…

    • kazahani

      The fact that apple named the Samsung Transform in their trade dress complaint says everything we need to know about this case. The phone has a slide out keyboard, and yet it violates Apple trade dress???

  • kwills88

    This case was way too big to have so many mistakes overlooked. Also the fact that a lot of evidence was thrown out makes it even worse, with the amount of money on the table everything should have been looked at more carefully…this whole thing was a mess.

  • masterpfa

    I always said that a decision of this magnitude and complexity of prior art and that was involved and discarded before this came to trial always meant that the final judgement was always going to be challenged.

    As a result of a Jury trial we have some self proclaimed Patents expert Velvin Hogan, “advising” and influencing the final decision of his fellow jurors by his handling of the calculations of damages and the “speedy” conclusion of the verdict, something real Patent experts are still debating up to now.

    The one benefit is making former iPhone users aware of a product that must be a serious competitor to the iPhone for crapple to take them to court and in a sense free advertising and product awareness of the Samsung Brand, (one staunch iPhone user in my household after years of owning every iP released has jumped ship after having just one look in store at the SGSIII)

    • Raptor (who has little hope for the country full of morons)

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      • clocinnorcal

        LOL, you are hilarious!

      • TheTruthSquad

        Just where do you think Apple got their design for the iPhone. They copied other products and improved on them, just like Samsung did. Now Apple is using the same software it has used since 2007 and hardware from two years ago. Apple has always put maximum profit ahead of innovation and as long has they have their legion of fanboys who are willing to bend over whenever they have a “new” old product, why should they spend any money on development?

  • R.S

    I won’t be surprised if/when Judge iKoh tries to down play the jury misconduct.

  • MrZackarius

    Good thing for Samsung, that the American judicial system is incompetent, when it comes to background checks…equally unfortunate for Samsung, is that it’s incompetent.

  • Max.Steel

    More crApple bias.

  • Axience

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

  • BrotherBloat

    the joke court cases continue… really the amount of resources that goes into these silly squabbles is just sick…

  • jsfacade

    Ugh, the case that keeps on giving.. “Your products look like ours because there rectangular and have on screen buttons” What a waste of time and money…

  1. Seems like there were a lot of other issues besides the concealed information… Like everything the jury foreman said later in interviews about how he decided himself that the apple patents were valid based on non-existent patent rules that he made up and used to convince the rest of the jury. And what he said about using the damages to punish Samsung and send a warning, though they were explicitly not supposed to do this.

    Not to mention how incredibly fast the jury came to a decision, and how they initially awarded millions of dollars of damages to apple on a couple devices that they had found not to infringe.

    I wonder if all of these issues are going to be considered as well…

    • The fact that apple named the Samsung Transform in their trade dress complaint says everything we need to know about this case. The phone has a slide out keyboard, and yet it violates Apple trade dress???

  2. This case was way too big to have so many mistakes overlooked. Also the fact that a lot of evidence was thrown out makes it even worse, with the amount of money on the table everything should have been looked at more carefully…this whole thing was a mess.

  3. I always said that a decision of this magnitude and complexity of prior art and that was involved and discarded before this came to trial always meant that the final judgement was always going to be challenged.

    As a result of a Jury trial we have some self proclaimed Patents expert Velvin Hogan, “advising” and influencing the final decision of his fellow jurors by his handling of the calculations of damages and the “speedy” conclusion of the verdict, something real Patent experts are still debating up to now.

    The one benefit is making former iPhone users aware of a product that must be a serious competitor to the iPhone for crapple to take them to court and in a sense free advertising and product awareness of the Samsung Brand, (one staunch iPhone user in my household after years of owning every iP released has jumped ship after having just one look in store at the SGSIII)

    • Raptor (who has little hope for the country full of morons)Guest 2 years ago

      Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

      • LOL, you are hilarious!

      • TheTruthSquadGuest 2 years ago

        Just where do you think Apple got their design for the iPhone. They copied other products and improved on them, just like Samsung did. Now Apple is using the same software it has used since 2007 and hardware from two years ago. Apple has always put maximum profit ahead of innovation and as long has they have their legion of fanboys who are willing to bend over whenever they have a “new” old product, why should they spend any money on development?

  4. I won’t be surprised if/when Judge iKoh tries to down play the jury misconduct.

  5. Good thing for Samsung, that the American judicial system is incompetent, when it comes to background checks…equally unfortunate for Samsung, is that it’s incompetent.

  6. AxienceGuest 2 years ago

    Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

  7. the joke court cases continue… really the amount of resources that goes into these silly squabbles is just sick…

  8. Ugh, the case that keeps on giving.. “Your products look like ours because there rectangular and have on screen buttons” What a waste of time and money…