Federal Judge To Review Jury Misconduct Claims In Apple Vs. Samsung Trial
In August, Federal District Judge Lucy Koh ruled in favor of Apple and ordered Samsung to pay $1 billion to Apple for patent infringement. Since the verdict, Samsung claimed that it didn’t receive a fair trial due to juror misconduct. Now, according to CNET, Judge Lucy Koh will “consider the questions” of whether the jury foreman of the case concealed information during the jury selection process and see if any misconduct occurred.
Samsung has argued that Velvin Hogan, the jury foreman, didn’t disclose during the jury selection that he had previously been sued by Seagate, his former employer, which led Hogan to file for bankruptcy in 1993. Samsung pointed out in court papers that Seagate and Samsung have a “substantial strategic relationship” and argues that Hogan should have informed the court about the case.
Hogan noted that he did disclose that he had been involved in a litigation with a former partner when the judge asked, but has said in response to Samsung’s allegations that the judge didn’t ask for a complete list of all the lawsuits he had been involved with.
Legal experts say it will be difficult to overturn the jury decision for alleged misconduct, and that they believe that there was no outside influence on Hogan or the other jurors involved in this case, which is what’s needed to get the case thrown out.
Judge Koh has said she will look into the allegations at a hearing on December 6. As part of the inquiry, she will also require that Apple disclose what information the company’s lawyers knew about Hogan.
Here’s Judge Koh’s official order on the matter:
On October 30, 2012, Samsung filed a motion to compel Apple to disclose the circumstances and timing of Apple’s discovery of certain information regarding the jury foreperson. On November 2, 2012, Apple filed an opposition. At the December 6, 2012 hearing, the Court will consider the questions of whether the jury foreperson concealed information during voir dire, 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.
Image Credit: CNET