Samsung takes aim at Apple patent trial juror

Samsung's appeal in its US case against Apple takes direct aim at jury foreman Velvin Hogan

Samsung's re-filed appeal in its intellectual property infringement law suit against Apple has confirmed that an attack on the probity of the jury foreman will spearhead the company's case.

In it, Samsung rejects all of Apple's claims and argues that a mistrial should be called because Velvin Hogan, the jury foreman, failed to disclose relevant law suits he had been involved in, and had misled the rest of the jury in their deliberations.

Hogan, in pre-trial vetting - called voir dire - did not disclose a court case he was involved in with a former employer, Seagate Technology, which led to his filing for personal bankruptcy six months later. The filing implies, but does not explicitly state, that Hogan sought not to disclose that dispute because Samsung is Seagate's largest shareholder and, hence, wanted to punish Samsung.

"Samsung has a substantial strategic relationship with Seagate, which culminated last year in the publicised sale of a division to Seagate in a deal worth $1.375bn [£bn], making Samsung the single largest direct shareholder of Seagate. The attorney who sued Mr Hogan on Seagate's behalf is the husband of a Quinn Emanuel partner [the law firm representing Samsung]," states the filing.

It continues: "Mr Hogan's failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore in questioning and that would have triggered a motion to strike for cause or a peremptory strike. Moreover, Mr Hogan's public statements suggest that he failed to answer the Court's question truthfully ‘in order to secure a seat on the jury'."

Citing case law, Samsung claims that in such cases bias ought to be presumed.

Samsung also pointed to other inconsistencies between how Hogan answered questions at this stage of the trial and his subsequent claims in the media afterwards. Pre-trial, "Hogan remained silent when asked if he had ‘strong feelings or strong opinions about either the United States patent system or intellectual property laws'."

[Turn to next page]

Samsung takes aim at Apple patent trial juror

Samsung's appeal in its US case against Apple takes direct aim at jury foreman Velvin Hogan

Afterwards, though, he told the media that the verdicts, "protected copyrights and intellectual property rights", and that he intended to "send a message to the industry at large that patent infringing is not the right thing to do" and "make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the wrist".

This desire to "punish", claimed Samsung, went beyond the jury's remit, which was only to determine recompense should they find that Samsung had infringed Apple's intellectual property, not to mete out punishment as well.

Apple fight
Apple, understandably, has come out fighting in defence of both the judgement - which went almost entirely in its favour - and the juror. It described Samsung's charges as "baseless, and its jury misconduct motion frivolous on its face".

Samsung's chances of getting the case annulled are slim, believes Santa Clara patent law professor Brian Love. He claims that the Federal Rules of Evidence, rule 606(b), covering jury misconduct sets the bar exceptionally high.

In the past, even evidence that jurors had drunk alcohol and used drugs during lunch breaks had been insufficient to annul a contested verdict, he said.

However, what is different in this case is that the allegations of jury misconduct relate directly to the decision-making by the jurors, which had been wrongly influenced, according to Samsung, by Hogan.

"For all these reasons, Mr Hogan's conduct during voir dire and jury deliberations must be fully examined in a hearing with all jurors and can be cured only be a grant of new trial," claimed Samsung.