Judge to consider Samsung's questions about jury foreman

Samsung has alleged that the jury foreman was untruthful and biased in a patent trial pitting the company against Apple

A court in California said Thursday that it would consider Samsung Electronics' concern that the foreman of the jury deciding a patent infringement lawsuit between Apple and Samsung had concealed information.

A jury in California decided in August that the South Korean company must pay Apple US$1.05 billion for infringing several of its patents in Samsung smartphones and tablets.

Samsung has, however, asked for a new trial of the case, alleging that the foreman of the jury, Velvin Hogan, was untruthful and biased. In the voir dire, a court procedure of questioning prospective jurors for potential bias, Hogan did not mention that he had been sued by his former employer, Seagate, for breach of contract after he failed to repay a promissory note in 1993 and filed for bankruptcy six months later, according to the filing on Oct. 2.

Samsung has a "substantial strategic relationship with Seagate," and is the single largest direct shareholder of the hard drive manufacturer after selling it a business division last year, it said in the filing.

On Oct. 30, Samsung filed a motion to compel Apple to disclose the circumstances and timing of Apple's discovery of certain information regarding the jury foreman.

Judge Lucy H. Koh of the District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose division, wrote in her order on Thursday that the court will consider the questions "of whether the jury foreperson concealed information during voir dire, whether any concealed information was material, and whether any concealment constituted misconduct."

"An assessment of such issues is intertwined with the question of whether and when Apple had a duty to disclose the circumstances and timing of its discovery of information about the foreperson," Judge Koh wrote.

The court will address Samsung's motion to compel at a Dec. 6 hearing. If the court grants the motion, it will likely order supplemental briefing before ruling on Samsung's motion for judgment as a matter of law, Koh said.

2015 State of The IT Channel Survey : IT'S TIME!!! Fill in this year's State of the IT Channel Survey and be in the running to win great prizes. CLICK HERE

Join the ARN newsletter!

Error: Please check your email address.

Tags Appleintellectual propertySamsung Electronicslegalpatent

Show Comments
 

Latest News

02:41PM
PernixData sets its sights on A/NZ
01:13PM
Exclusive: Huawei sponsors AFL's Gold Coast Suns
12:40PM
Cloud drives 40 per cent channel growth for Kaseya
12:36PM
Hyland names Bob Dunn as first country manager for Australia
More News
14 Apr
Dell Solutions Tour Melbourne
15 Apr
LIVE WEBCAST Websense 2015 Threat Report: 8 High-Risk Lessons
21 Apr
APJ Progress Spark Conference
22 Apr
2015 Innotribe Startup Challenge
View all events