Judge Koh Denies Juror Misconduct Claim in Samsung v. Apple

Monday December 17, 2012 10:14 PM PST by Husain Sumra
In a pair of court filings tonight, Judge Lucy Koh published a pair of decisions in Samsung v. Apple. The first filing (via The Verge) denied Samsung's motion for a new trial regarding alleged juror misconduct by jury foreman Velvin Hogan.

Samsung accused Hogan of withholding the fact that he had been involved in a lawsuit with Seagate, a partner of Samsung's. Judge Koh didn't agree, saying in her filing that Samsung's attorneys should have dug up the information.
Prior to the verdict, Samsung could have discovered Mr. Hogan's litigation with Seagate, had Samsung acted with reasonable diligence based on information Samsung acquired through voir dire, namely that Mr. Hogan stated during voir dire that he had worked for Seagate.
Judge Koh denied a second motion (via AppleInsider), this one filed by Apple, requesting a U.S. ban on certain Samsung products. The motion was denied because Apple was not harmed by Samsung infringing on the patents.
In sum, to the limited extent that Apple has been able to show that any of its harms were caused by Samsung’s illegal conduct (in this case, only trade dress dilution), Apple has not established that the equities support an injunction. Accordingly, Apple’s motion for a permanent injunction is DENIED.
The decisions amount to more jousting in the ongoing legal drama between Samsung and Apple.

Top Rated Comments

(View all)

Posted: 25 months ago
In before knightwrx typical comments about how this is unfair and Apple is a terrible company.
Rating: 24 Votes
Posted: 25 months ago
I'm almost out of popcorn.
Rating: 9 Votes
Posted: 25 months ago
And this was predictable when it was last reported.
Rating: 4 Votes
Posted: 25 months ago
What's next in Samsung's bag-o-tricks?
Rating: 4 Votes
Posted: 25 months ago
Rating: 4 Votes
Posted: 25 months ago

I'm not an Apple executive, silly.

Just massively dislike Samsung. :)

So you must massively dislike most of your Apple product then?
Rating: 4 Votes
Posted: 25 months ago

Meh - hardly a zing since Samsung's been producing TVs for years and Apple hasn't produced any (yet).

Then you missed the joke. Here's the joke: Samsung copies Apple.

I doubt you will find it funny given your post history shows someone who is very much in the Pro-Google camp, which lends itself to not finding poking fun at their partners.
Rating: 3 Votes
Posted: 25 months ago
I do find it annoying that news is not evenly distributed here. MacRumors is like the Fox News of Apple, focusing on only pro-Apple news, and either "missing" or burying any news that looks bad for Apple.

I think Apple either pays MR or donates Apple gear to the website to keep the news positive for Apple. It doesn't matter, though. All the real news is covered by real news agencies worldwide, so this effort here just looks bad to those that pay attention.
Rating: 3 Votes
Posted: 25 months ago

Probably not. Nor has Gnasher. But that's besides the point, isn't it. Point is - it's hyperbole.

No one here knows whether there is evidence. Only whether or not it was discovered.

And you don't have to be a Samsung fan or Fandroid to think there were issues with the judgement.

Nor do I believe that those "fandroids" or Samsung fans ONLY reason for having an issue is because it a was verdict against Samsung.


It's almost depressing, really. Amazing how some people seemingly tie their own personality into a device to the point that they can see no flaws with it, and nothing but flaws when it comes to the competition.

Every single time it comes up, I ask the same unanswerable question. Why? It's just so...stupid to me. I like my iPhone. Doesn't mean I have to hate Android because I do. Yet some people do just that. Say anything positive about the competition or negative about Apple, and suddenly some mouthbreather comes out of the woodwork and starts calling you a "fandroid".

It's pure ignorance, plain and simple.


So, I ask for history and you copy marketing-speak? Lord....

The only one that applies is "mass produce digital TV". Everything else is just incremental changes, or doesn't even exist, yet. (how's your flexible TV doing?) Going from 40-46" is not exactly revolutionary, not even evolutionary.

Yeah, because a 40" OLED isn't nearly as life changing as bouncy screens, right?
Rating: 3 Votes
Posted: 25 months ago

Would you care to give an example?

Here's an example of the opposite:
The only recent reinvention was Sharp/Pioneer Elite. They made LEDs what they SHOULD have been from day one. After Samsung (and everyone) had years to make a truly useful LED tech, someone else did. "Micro-dimming" from edge-lit tech, gimme a break. LED before the Elites was just another example of the race to the bottom in cost/price/profit, while making it look "cool" to trick people into upgrading for no reason.

According to Samsung's website:

First 30 inch TFT-LCD
First to mass produce digital TV
First 3D TFT-LCD
First 40 inch TFT-LCD
First 46 inch LCD.
First 40 inch OLED.
Largest flexible LCD panel 2005
Thinnest LED TV panel 2009
First to mass produce 3D TV
First launch Full HD 3D LED TV
First RVU TV
First 55 inch OLED


You can also go into google patents and find literally hundreds of samsung tv patents. Type in:

inassignee:"Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd." tv
Rating: 3 Votes

[ Read All Comments ]