Samsung goes after jury foreman in bid to reverse Apple verdict

“Samsung doesn’t want you to know why it believes juror misconduct tainted the $1.05 billion verdict that a San Jose federal court jury delivered to Apple in August,” Alison Frankel and Dan Levine report for Thompson Reuters.

“Its lawyers at Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan redacted that entire section of the motion for judgment as a matter of law that they filed Friday with U.S. District Judge Lucy Koh in San Jose, California,” Frankel and Levine report. “But from a close examination of the statute and cases Samsung cited in the redacted section, we’ve discerned Samsung’s two-pronged argument for juror misconduct: The nine-person jury improperly considered extraneous evidence during deliberations and jury foreman Velvin Hogan failed to disclose in voir dire that he was involved in 1993 litigation with a former employer that led him and his wife to declare personal bankruptcy.”

Much more in the full article – recommended – here.

Related articles:
Apple calls Samsung’s allegation of jury misconduct ‘frivolous on its face’ – September 26, 2012
Samsung asks for new trial in patent dispute with Apple – September 25, 2012


  1. Samsung better get some real licenses lawyers.
    In case they forget, those jury including the foreman were approved by both parties, yes, that includes Sammy’s approval of the jury.

    1. They had their chance to disqualify him. It’s up to them to ask the pertinent questions both on the stand pre-trial and in the prospective juror questionnaire. They didn’t do that. Too bad. Too late. Game over.

          1. Ever hear of the term setting a new precedent? In this case given the international connotations it might matter.

            This chap should have simply shut the hell up after the trial. I am convinced that the Court set aside the hearing to consider Apple’s request to ban Samsung devices until early December for a reason other than being too busy.

            1. You obviously don’t know what “precedent” means in a court of law. A legal precedent is a decision rendered by a court on a specific set of facts and circumstances and applying a particular legal principle and/or law to those facts and circumstances.

              A juror talking out his *ss after a judgment has been rendered has nothing to do with the court’s decision or legal precedent.

            2. Setting a new precedent? You must be kidding. Do you have the first bit of knowledge about how the law works? A precedent such as you are hoping for would have to go to the USSC, and it would turn the law on its head. I understand that you really, really, really hate Apple and you’re jealous of the attention the jury foreman has gotten. I get that. But that doesn’t mean that the world is going to bend over backwards to kiss your little behind. Get over it.

        1. I agree. It seems just wrong that a juror can be interviewed post trial. And I agree that the foreman looked as though he wanted some “attention”. I’d like to see a blackout period of at least a year. Regardless of whether or not post trial behavior matters.

          1. I don’t like seeing media interviews of jurors, but Jurors are routinely interviewed post trial. For starters, both sets of lawyers (prosecution and defense) often talk to jurors to try to improve their techniques – What statements or evidence were deemed important? etc.

        2. 1) I understand the 15 minutes of fame. But so far I have not heard anything about anyone getting rich.

          2) Anyway, what is the point of banning free speech after a public trial? Who are you trying to protect?

  2. Desperation smell like Samsung.

    Samasung made a bif spectacle of apealing the case before the foreman of the jury ever gave any interviews, the substance of which Samesung now is using as grounds for an appeal.


  3. Samsung: What the hell is wrong with you?
    • Stop harassing jurors.
    • Stop attempting to subvert justice.
    • STFU and pay up for your blatant crimes.
    • Go invent your own IP, you lazy plagiarists.
    • Take your obnoxious, aggressive bad attitude and shove it back up where it came from.

    You got screwed, you deserved it, deal with it.

  4. it turned out that apple actually bought some trusted people who can defend its situation against samsung, huh? if second trial would be opened, there is highly possible that samsung could win. apple could be seriously in trouble all of sudden. apple’s all products would be ban to sell in american soil. it’s actually what samsung wants as well.

Reader Feedback

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