Apple v. Samsung verdict under cloud as jury foreman found to have own smartphone patents

“The jury foreman in Apple’s landmark legal victory over Samsung, has a patent in his own name for a device that can be used in smart phones and tablets, it has emerged,” ANI reports.

“Velvin Hogan reportedly filed documents with the US Patent Office in 2002 for the ‘method and apparatus for recording and storing video information,'” ANI reports. “According to the Daily Mail, the disclosure has raised a huge potential conflict of interest as it is not clear if the patent has ever been bought or used by any tech companies.”

ANI reports, “It is not known if Hogan’s patent has been used or seen by either Apple or Samsung, but if he were biased in any way towards Apple it could have had a massive influence on jury’s decision.”

Read more in the full article here.

MacDailyNews Take: Samsung’s desperation on full display. if this is all you’ve got, boys, you’ve got nothing.

[Thanks to MacDailyNews Reader “Fred Mertz” for the heads up.]

Related article:
Apple jury foreman: Here’s how we reached a verdict (with video) – August 28, 2012


  1. The more sensitive or complex a case, the more information is available on those in the juror pool. Questionnaires for potential jurors in major cases can run dozens of pages. The lawyers clearly knew the guy worked in tech. So that fact post-judgement shouldn’t be used to disqualify the judgement. (Note there were eight other jurors and the trial took place in Silicon Valley.)

    Moreover, it’s often deemed beneficial to have at least *someone* on the jury familiar with issues such as those that will be presented. Though lawyers *want* a group of individuals most predisposed to their position, a juror pool solely of the retired or unemployed may be unqualified to render justice.

    Full disclosure: I’ve served on two juries, been excused from several others.

  2. What the hell? That patent is about a DVR-like device, nothing to do with smartphones.

    Samesung are really grasping at straws over this one.

    Funny they didn’t have an issue with a Google employee being in the jury and forced Apple to use one of their options to dismiss him.

  3. Interesting article on Seeking Alpha bu a lawyer…

    “I’m a business lawyer, not a patent lawyer. I have no special knowledge of the facts, aside from what I’ve read in the press. But I’ve been struck by the sheer volume of seemingly uninformed comment, which notes that further appeals are likely, and assumes from this there is a significant likelihood the decision or the damage award will be reversed.

    Lawsuits generally include both questions of law and questions of fact. Judges and appeals courts concern themselves only with questions of law; in jury cases only the jury decides questions of fact. An appeals court will not substitute its own decision for the jury’s decision on a question of fact except in the most obvious cases. Overturning a jury’s decision would generally require establishing that the jury’s decision was “clearly erroneous”, not just that the appeals court would have decided differently.

    The jury was given several hundred specific questions to answer as part of the process of reaching its decision. By all reports, this jury did a thorough job, and they reached a unanimous decision.”

    1. Eloquently stated, but you missed the entire challengeable factor in this and that is the Jury Foreman’s post trial theatrics and that my dear lawyer friend is enough to get the Judge to recant the Jury’s verdict and call for a new trial.

      Listen why do you think that the Court will only hear the Apple case to ban Samsung devices in question in early December? Short answer…. because it will not happen.

          1. Ploth, my take is only based on the fact that the verdict seems to “empty” given the 3 months that the Court will take to even hear Apple’s request to ban the devices in question. Something is not right and I think that it is in fact the Jury Foreman’s lack of post trial decorum. I could be off on a timeline, but I suspect that the legal arguments must be flying in every imaginable direction to stay the verdict and proceed to a new trial.

      1. “…you missed the entire challengeable factor in this and that is the Jury Foreman’s post trial theatrics and that my dear lawyer friend is enough to get the Judge to recant the Jury’s verdict and call for a new trial.”

        And you have a citation and case law that supports this fantasy?

        1. Zeke your are just blowing smoke when you constantly challenge me by suggesting that is a standard civil case. This is a very serious case for the USA as it incorporates a defendant that has been found guilty by a US Jury in a US Court overseen by a US Judge. Clearly any suggestion that a member of the Jury and in particular a suggestion the that the Jury Foreman was evaluating the case based on a rational that could be self-serving is problematic.

          That is all I am saying. Not a fan of cheaters but the process of determining guilt has to be flawless.

          1. You ARE a fan of cheaters. You plead Samsung’s case here daily and hope in your little heart of hearts that they are saved from their fate in the end.

            Your point SHOULD have been addressed by the Samsung lawyers during jury selection. They had the chance to challenge and disqualify the juror. THEY RAISED NO CHALLENGE! They missed their chance. It’s too late now. They are now precluded BY LAW from appealing on the grounds of his patent ownership. End of story. Game over! Get it?

            1. Not even close. What I am is prudent not too sing the praises of ANY for profit company that today appears to be squeaky clean and in a month they are up on charges or being sought out by the IRS, etc…

              Know what I mean….

            2. I’ve invested in Apple and followed them daily for over 10 years now. Apple continues to exhibit exemplary ethics and customer service. When you deal with crooks, liars, and thieves like Samsung I suppose you caution is warranted.

            3. You invest Apple – Obviously you protect your interest ; defend Apple. Seems like you never tried other products. Technologically Samsung has far ahead of Apple. Samsung spent 40 billion for R&D and Apple spent only 2 billion last year.
              You commented – Appl exhibit ethical standard : Apple steal Xerox technology, copied Sony prototype made iphone, Steal Motorola patent without permission for Siri on iphone4 and using Samsung’s patented cellphone technologies from the beginning , patented unpatentable patents and act like they invented rectangle, brain washed consumers with huge marketing budgets including numerous con-articles all over the on and offlines.

            4. applefanboy: Yes, I want to protect my investment from Samsung’s lies. There are several points on which you are dead wrong, either uninformed or just plain lying:

              1. I’ve never tried other products. Lie: Until I retired last week I was a systems administrator for a large corporation. I used Windows, Linux, SQL, Oracle, Dell, and Samsung products in my employment. All but Linux were a major pain to use.

              2. Copied Xerox technology. Lie: Apple paid Xerox for the IP they got from them.

              3. Copied Sony prototype. Lie: Apple has released images of an iPhone prototype from 2005 codenamed ‘purple’ as evidence to refute Samsung’s assertion that Apple copied its iPhone design from Sony. The prototype was asserted by Apple’s lawyers to predate the 2006 Sony-inspired prototype designed by Apple’s Shin Nishibori. As a result, Apple’s lawyers have filed (pdf) to have Samsung’s references to Nishibori design study stricken from the record.

              4. Stole Motorola patent for Siri on iPhone4 and other Samsung patents. Lie: This is yet another attempt to extort Apple by Motorola and Samsung for using a FRAND patent. Motorola and Samsung have refused to license their patents at the same price they gave others. That’s illegal.

              The rest of your post is standard Samsung disinformation. How much are they paying you to astroturf?

            5. You copied one of Apple lawyer or Mr. Hogan, jury foreman;
              Here’s how Hogan explained his process of persuading the jury to rule in favor of Apple:
              At that point in time, I thought it was going to ultimately lean the other way… We were at a stalemate, but some of the jurors were not sure of the patent prosecution process. Some were not sure of how prior art could either render a patent acceptable or whether it could invalidate it. What we did is we started talking about one and when the day was over and I was at home, thinking about that patent claim by claim, limit by limit, I had what we would call an a-ha moment and I suddenly decided I could defend this if it was my patent…And with that, I took that story back to the jury and laid it out for them. They understood the points I was talking about and then we meticulously went patent by patent and claim by claim against the test that the judge had given us, because each patent had a different legal premise to judge on. We got those all sorted out and decided which ones were valid and which ones were not.
              He ”suddenly decided I could defend this if it was my patent” because he does own his own patent. Not only that, but it looks as though his patent is pretty broad. Depending on what companies know of or have licensed Hogan’s patent (especially Apple and Samsung), this finding could spell trouble for the case. It’s currently unclear whether Hogan’s patent has been used by any tech companies.


            6. A jury does what it does. Both sides have the unlimited ability to challenge prospective jurors for cause before the trial. Both sides knew about this guy’s patent. Nobody challenged his selection as a juror. It doesn’t matter who said what in the jury room. It doesn’t matter what a juror says now. GAME OVER!

          2. “…the process of determining guilt has to be flawless.”

            You are confusing the civil and criminal standard of guilt. Criminal guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Civil guilt is determined by a preponderance of the evidence. In other words, close is good enough.

  4. This is a Trumped up click bait story.

    Fact: he had disclosed this information to the attorneys and to the court at the time of selections, it was all over the News and the Wall Street Journel even reported it as one jury member had owned patents and designed some years back.

    He passed the selection process, looks as if the Android/Samsung losers are looking for something to talk about to muddy the loss.

    Old News and it’s really No News.

Reader Feedback

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.