Update: According to Bloomberg, the jury has ordered that Samsung pay Apple $290 million in damages over the retrial. Including damages awarded Apple in the original trial, that brings Samsung’s total in damages owed to Apple to $890 million.
Jury Stories November 21, 2013
Jury Stories November 9, 2012
Following the $1 billion verdict in the Samsung vs. Apple case, Samsung has been attempting to get the courts to investigate juror Velvin Hogan. It claimed Hogan “concealed information” about his past history with Seagate, a company Samsung is now a shareholder in. CNET reported Federal District Judge Lucy Koh will consider Samsung’s claims in a hearing set for Dec. 6. At the heart of the allegations is whether Hogan disclosed that his former employee Seagate had previously sued him:
As part of her inquiry, Koh said she will require Apple to disclose what information the company’s lawyers knew about the jury foreman…Samsung argued that jury foreman Velvin Hogan didn’t disclose during jury selection that he had been sued by Seagate, his former employer. Samsung pointed out in court papers that Seagate and Samsung have a “substantial strategic relationship.” The litigation with Seagate led Hogan to file for personal bankruptcy in 1993. Samsung maintains Hogan should have informed the court about the case.
Jury Stories August 27, 2012
You’ve seen Apple’s internal memo to employees on the verdict, now here’s Samsung’s
If, when you read “History has shown there has yet to be a company that has won the hearts and minds of consumers and achieved continuous growth, when its primary means to competition has been the outright abuse of patent law, not the pursuit of innovation.” you thought “Microsoft!”, you are not alone.
Jury Stories August 20, 2012
Read the grueling jury verdict test that Apple v. Samsung jurors must complete
Jury deliberations for the much-reported Apple vs. Samsung trial are set to begin this week, and both companies want the nine jurors to complete an intricate exam to determine if a patent was infringed. As The Wall Street Journal first noted, each side created an elaborate worksheet with dozens of multi-part questions:
- The general principle is that for each device, the jury has to indicate “yes” or “no” for whether a certain patent is infringed.
- Then there are fill-in-the-blank questions like: “What is the dollar amount that Samsung is entitled to receive from Apple for Samsung’s utility patent infringement claims on the ’516 and ’941 patents?” Fun stuff.
- The jurors must be unanimous to determine whether a patent was infringed.
Judge Lucy Koh will decide on the final form to be presented to the jury.
Check out both proposed verdict forms below (via WSJ).
Jury Stories May 23, 2012
Jury verdict: Android did not infringe upon Oracle’s patents
Jury Stories May 11, 2012
Apple to judge: Samsung intentionally ‘spoiled’ documents
Apple filed a motion in the Northern District of California on May 1 that claimed Samsung ruined documents it needed to submit for the discovery process in a “spoilation of evidence,” according to the legal jargon that described the act. NetworkWorld elaborated:
- In effect, Apple wants the Judge to instruct the jury as follows:
- 1. Samsung had a duty to preserve relevant evidence, failed to do so, and acted in bad faith in failing to meet its legal duty.
- 2. The jury may infer that documents Samsung failed to produce would have been advantageous to Apple’s position.
- 3. If the jury finds Samsung liable for infringement, they may presume that the infringement was “intentional, willful, without regard to Apple’s rights.”
- Apple’s motion doesn’t pull any punches, accusing Samsung of spoilating “vast quantities of relevant evidence in blatant disregard of its duty to preserve all such evidence.” Consequently, Apple writes that strong adverse inference instructions are required.
A hearing on Apple’s motion is scheduled for June 7, with Samsung’s reply brief due by May 15. However, Samsung said the claims are without merit, and it wants the due date extended to May 29. It is also seeking to have the matter’s hearing pushed to July 10, 2012, but Apple wasted no time and quickly filed a reply on May 7 that asked Samsung’s motion to be denied.