Apple strikes back
Apple has hit back at Samsung’s claims that the recent concluded trial between the two tech giants was a mistrial. In Samsung’s filing, the legal team attacked the Jury foreman Velvin Hogan
Here are are few things Samsung took issue with form the trial:
- Samsung felt the Jury foreman Velvin Hogan did not disclose his involvement in lawsuits with his former employer – Seagate, which led to his filing for personal bankruptcy in 1993.
- Samsung argues that the jury foreman’s failure to disclose previous litigation with Seagate Technology, a company in which Samsung is a major investor.
- Samsung believes the foreman uses his personal experience and to influence the other jurors. the jury was instructed to “decide the case solely on the evidence before you.”
Apple seeks to rebut these claims in there filing. Apple believes Samsung does not have a case for retrial. As far as the Cupertino company is concern, Samsung fail to question the relevant questions of the jury foreman and is only complaining because the trial has gone against them.
Here is an excerpt from the filing:
Mr. Hogan’s Voir Dire Responses Do Not Require A New Trial.
Samsung waived these objections
Samsung accuses Mr. Hogan of “fail[ing] to answer truthfully during voir dire” by notmentioning a dispute with Seagate in 1993 and a related bankruptcy. (Mot. at 2.) Samsungwaived these objections because it knew of or could have discovered the alleged “lies” before the verdict. “‘[A] defendant cannot learn of juror misconduct during the trial, gamble on a favorableverdict by remaining silent, and then complain in a post-verdict motion that the verdict wasprejudicially influenced by that misconduct.’”
United States v. Bolinger , 837 F.2d 436, 438-39(11th Cir. 1988); Robinson v. Monsanto Co. , 758 F.2d 331, 335 (8th Cir. 1985) (objection waivedif basis “might have been discovered during voir dire”); see McDonough Power Equip., Inc. v.Greenwood , 464 U.S. 548, 550 n.2 (1984) (party cannot attack verdict based on unchallenged voirdire answer that it “thought to be factually incorrect”).
Mr. Hogan disclosed during voir dire that he had “worked for Seagate” (Tr. 191:20-192:2), and Samsung also knew that day that Mr. Hogan failed to disclose that he “declared bankruptcy in 1993.” (Dkt. No. 2022 ¶ 9.)
If Samsung’s recent acquisition of a 9.6% stake inSeagate (Dkt. No. 2013-4) were so important that bias toward Seagate could create bias against Case5:11-cv-01846-LHK Document2050 Filed10/19/12 Page10 of 40 Samsung, it should have asked Mr. Hogan about Seagate. Had Samsung done so, or ordered thebankruptcy file—the exact step it took only after it received the unfavourable jury verdict—it could have discovered the Seagate complaint. (Dkt. No. 2022 ¶ 4.) By doing nothing, Samsung waived its objections. Robinson, 758 F.2d at 334-35.
Judge Koh is set to give her ruling on the matter on 6 December.
More Cover: CNet
Image Credit: CNet
Posted by
Staff
|
Posted at October 20, 2012 16:47 |
Tags: apple, Apple vs Samsung, Judge Koh, news, Samsung, Technology, trial, verdict
Related Posts
The Next iPhone Release: Rumors, Features, and What to Expect
February 26, 2024
As we edge closer to the unveiling of Apple's next...
Will Apple Develop a ChatGPT A.I. Competitor?
April 23, 2023
Apple has always been known for its innovative products, from...