clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Apple rebuts juror misconduct claims, says Samsung dropped the ball

New, 230 comments
Apple Samsung verdict reading sketch
Apple Samsung verdict reading sketch

Earlier this month Samsung accused the jury foreman in the Apple v. Samsung trial of misconduct, arguing that Apple's $1.049 billion win should be thrown out in favor of a new trial. Now Apple has filed its response with the court, saying that Samsung had its shot to investigate foreman Velvin Hogan during jury selection — and that it's too late to complain now.

One of the main issues is that during jury selection Hogan was asked if he'd been involved in any lawsuits. He did mention one, but failed to disclose a breach of contract case from 1993 between him and his former employer, Seagate. Last year, Samsung became the single largest direct shareholder of Seagate. According to Samsung's legal team, that fact — along with the strong feelings about patent rights that Hogan expressed to this publication and others — indicate that he could have been biased against the company.

Hogan said he'd worked for Seagate during jury selection

In its response, Apple points out that Hogan told the court that he'd been employed by Seagate during jury selection, and that if Samsung had truly been concerned about potential Seagate bias translating into Samsung bias, it could have inquired further then — something Samsung's attorneys neglected to do. Additionally, Samsung's own legal team has admitted that it discovered Hogan had an unmentioned bankruptcy on his record the very same day the jury was selected. It turns out the bankruptcy was related to the Seagate suit, providing another way that Samsung could have discovered the Seagate lawsuit if it had followed the thread. However, Samsung only ordered the bankruptcy file on Hogan after it lost the case in August.

As a result, Apple says, Samsung waived its right to object to these issues because it either already knew about them and kept quiet, or could have known about them — but didn't pursue them back before the trial began.

Of course, it's all just arguing until Judge Lucy Koh makes a decision. Fighting tooth and nail over every single point is to be expected in this kind of case, and with preliminary injunctions being lifted and Apple requesting additional damages, one thing is certain: the rollercoaster isn't coming to a stop anytime soon.