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.

Tags Appleintellectual propertypatentlegalSamsung Electronics

Comments

Comments are now closed

 

Latest News

12:09PM
Impact Systems boss wants to buy 10 resellers
11:50AM
Dicker Data exceeds its own expectations in FY2015 Q1
09:18AM
Victorian government funds development of digital Court Triage Service
08:54AM
Lenovo acquisition of Motorola finalised
More News
05 Nov
LIVE Webcast: Lessons Learned from the Biggest Security Breaches
05 Nov
vForum 2014
10 Nov
Ascom Myco Launch Event
11 Nov
DCIM Certified Solutions Professional
View all events