[QUOTE=Groklaw]Samsung has now filed [URL="http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2013.pdf"]an unredacted version[/URL] of its motion for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, and/or remittitur. That's the one that was originally filed with a redacted section [URL="http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20120923233451725"]we figured out[/URL] was about the foreman, Velvin Hogan. The judge ordered it filed unsealed, and so now we get to read all about it.
It's pretty shocking to see the full story. I understand now why Samsung tried to seal it. [B]They call Mr. Hogan untruthful in [I]voir dire[/I] (and I gather in media interviews too), accuse him of "implied bias" and of tainting the process by introducing extraneous "evidence" of his own during jury deliberations[/B], all of which calls, Samsung writes, for an evidentiary hearing and a new trial with an unbiased jury as the cure.
Were you wondering how Samsung found out about the lawsuit that Hogan failed to mention in [I]voir dire[/I], the litigation between Seagate and Hogan that Samsung dug up? Apple was, as I'll show you. You wouldn't believe it if it was in a movie script. The lawyer who sued Mr. Hogan on behalf of Seagate back in 1993 is now married to a partner at Quinn Emanuel, the lawyers for Samsung.
What are the odds?
And did you read [URL="http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2012ExsAB.pdf"]in Reuters[/URL] the story Hogan told about that litigation? Samsung shows that his story to Reuters is not the way it was in real life. There are, of course, materials in support, and they too are now unsealed.
[URL="http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2013ExA.pdf"]Exhibit A[/URL] to 2013 is the Seagate v Hogan complaint filed in 1993 by Seagate, and [URL="http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2013ExB.pdf"]Exhibit B[/URL] is the bankruptcy filing. Seagate filed a claim in that bankruptcy. Note that Seagate did a kind of deal with Samsung in 2011 (see [URL="http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-2013ExC.pdf"]Exhibit C[/URL]), buying the hard drive unit and Samsung becoming a major shareholder in Seagate, in fact the largest single shareholder in Seagate, and I would suspect that Samsung's thinking is that Mr. Hogan might have a teensy bug up his nose about Samsung as a result of that connection to Seagate.[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Ars Technica][B]That lawsuit, which demanded Hogan pay back certain house payments that Seagate had assisted him with, ultimately caused Hogan and his wife to file for bankruptcy.[/B] "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," write Samsung lawyers.
[B]Samsung also suggests that Hogan didn't disclose how pro-patent he was when asked in court whether he had "strong feelings" about the US patent system.[/B] The new motion argues that Hogan's silence didn't sync up with his later statements to The Verge that "except for my family, it [jury service] was the high point of my career... you might even say my life," and that he wanted to be satisfied "that this trial was fair, and protected copyrights and intellectual property rights, no matter who they belonged to."[/QUOTE]
[QUOTE=Groklaw]What does all this mean? It means that this claim by Samsung isn't about jury thought processes, the kind of issue that the judge mentioned as being not something that can be questioned. [B]This is instead about juror *misconduct*, [I]which absolutely is the kind of thing that can undo jury verdicts.[/I][/B][/QUOTE]
[url]http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770[/url]
[url]http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/10/samsung-claims-foreman-lied-about-his-past-to-get-on-apple-v-samsung-jury/[/url]
This shit is getting fun!
Oh, and a little FYI:
[QUOTE=Groklaw]Many of the rest of the exhibits to #2013 are media interviews with Hogan. Interestingly, comments to the articles are included. [B]All I can say is, if you ever comment on an online legal news story, think before you write, because you may go down in history.[/B][/QUOTE]
This shouldn't surprise anyone. The statements Hogan made after the trial were already helping Samsung mount reason for an appeal. But the fact that they did not reveal this information when required, is concerning.
The "pro-patent" thing seems kinda strange, since Samsung themselves claim Apple are infringing on their patents, so wouldn't they want somebody who agrees with the idea of these patents?
[QUOTE=TheDecryptor;37905338]The "pro-patent" thing seems kinda strange, since Samsung themselves claim Apple are infringing on their patents, so wouldn't they want somebody who agrees with the idea of these patents?[/QUOTE]
You're not supposed to have a [I]stance[/I] on the law, you're supposed to do as instructed. The concern was that he was doing as he felt would be best for patent holders [I]like him,[/I] even if that was in actuality not how the law goes.
It'd be like saying you're "pro-homeowner" but then ignoring someone running a meth lab in their basement because that's how [I]you[/I] understand home ownership.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
