Sign in to follow this  

Lucy Koh considers possible juror misconduct in Apple/Samsung trial

Recommended Posts

Boz    1,325

The judge who presided over the patent litigation between Apple and Samsung Electronics said she will consider Samsung's concern that the foreman of the jury had concealed relevant information.

A jury in California decided in August that the South Korean company must pay Apple US$1.05 billion for infringing several of its patents in Samsung smartphones and tablets.

Samsung has, however, asked for a new trial of the case, alleging that the foreman of the jury, Velvin Hogan, was untruthful and biased. In the voir dire, a court procedure of questioning prospective jurors for potential bias, Hogan did not mention that he had been sued by his former employer, Seagate, for breach of contract after he failed to repay a promissory note in 1993 and filed for bankruptcy six months later, according to the filing on October 2.

Samsung has a "substantial strategic relationship with Seagate," and is the single largest direct shareholder of the hard drive manufacturer after selling it a business division last year, it said in the filing.

http://www.pcworld.c...nduct.html#jump

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Laughing Man    442

Just when we thought it was all over...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shakey    1,126

Hopefully Apple gets handed more fines. It's just what they deserve after everything they have been trying to pull.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Raa    1,379

Just when we thought it was all over...

Oh no, we knew this was coming...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Lord Method Man    1,613

Very clear misconduct here. How many of the jurors were seen a few weeks later standing in line for the iPhone 5?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Phouchg    2,050
ZZ5ZA.png
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Growled    3,880

I think Samsung has a strong case here for misconduct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Anibal P    1,998

I think Samsung has a strong case here for misconduct.

Considering how many real legal experts believe the same thing, it might have been career suicide for her to not open it up for investigation

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.