A federal judge today denied Samsung's request for a new trial against based on allegations of jury misconduct.
The South Korean electronics giant had asked that Apple's billion-dollar verdict be thrown out, arguing it was tainted by the jury foreman's failure to disclose previous litigation with Seagate Technology, a company in which Samsung is a major investor, as well as an alleged bias made evident by statements made to the media after the verdict.
Samsung argued that jury foreman Velvin Hogan should have revealed to the judge during jury selection that he had been sued by Seagate -- his former employer -- which led to his filing for personal bankruptcy in 1993. Also, in a post-verdict interviews with Reuters, Hogan said "the jury 'wanted to send a message to the industry at large that patent infringing is not the right thing to do, not just Samsung,'" and that the "message [the jury] sent was not just a slap on the wrist."
In seeking to have an August 24 verdict overturned that found Samsung liable for about $1.05 billion in damages arising from software patents on mobile devices, Samsung argued that Hogan was deliberately dishonest during jury questioning.
"Samsung has a substantial strategic relationship with Seagate, which culminated last year in the publicized sale of a division to Seagate in a deal worth $1.375 billion, making Samsung the single largest direct shareholder of Seagate," the company said in its October motion. "Mr. Hogan's failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore in questioning," However, Lucy Koh, the U.S. District Court judge presiding over the patent case, noted that the statements he made regarding legal standards used during deliberations or the jurors' mental process were barred by federal evidence rules.
"Even if the standards related by Mr. Hogan were completely erroneous, those statements would still be barred, by Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) and cannot be considered in deciding whether to hold an evidentiary hearing," Koh said.
She also blamed Samsung for not asking Hogan the proper questions to reveal any alleged bias against Seagate.
"Samsung could have uncovered the Seagate lawsuit, or at least Mr. Hogan's feelings regarding Seagate, had it exercised reasonable diligence in questioning Mr. Hogan during its allotted time in voir dire," she said. "Moreover, even without asking Mr. Hogan directly, Samsung could have exercised reasonable diligence outside of trial and could have discovered the lawsuit by requesting the bankruptcy file, exactly as Samsung did later, when it became motivated to do so."
Samsung loses bid for new trial after Apple's $1B verdict
This article
Samsung loses bid for new trial after Apple's $1B verdict
can be opened in url
http://newsarmorer.blogspot.com/2012/12/samsung-loses-bid-for-new-trial-after.html
Samsung loses bid for new trial after Apple's $1B verdict
