Responding to Samsung’s accusation of juror misconduct in the Apple vs Samsung trial that resulted in $1.049 billion win for Cupertino, Apple said that Korean manufacturer had its chance during jury selection.
Apple added that it is too late to complain now and jury foreman Velvin Hogan had told the court that he had been employed by Seagate at the time of jury selection and Samsung should have inquired about the potential conflict at that time.
Samsung accuses Mr. Hogan of “fail[ing] to answer truthfully during voir dire” by not mentioning a dispute with Seagate in 1993 and a related bankruptcy. Samsung waived these objections because it knew of or could have discovered the alleged “lies” before the verdict.
Mr. Hogan disclosed during voir dire that he had “worked for Seagate”, and Samsung also knew that day that Mr. Hogan failed to disclose that he “declared bankruptcy in 1993.” If Samsung’s recent acquisition of a 9.6% stake in Seagate were so important that bias toward Seagate could create bias against Samsung, it should have asked Mr. Hogan about Seagate. Had Samsung done so, or ordered the bankruptcy file—the exact step it took only after it received the unfavorable jury verdict—it could have discovered the Seagate complaint. By doing nothing, Samsung waived its objections.
– Apple in its response to Samsung’s juror misconduct allegations
Earlier this month Samsung had filed a motion to ask the court to investigate Hogan for misconduct and grant a new trial.
Actually, when inquired during jury selection whether he was involved in any lawsuits, Hogan had told the court about one lawsuit but failed to mention a case relating to Seagate, in which Samsung has a large share.
Samsung’s legal team found that Hogan had an unmentioned bankruptcy on his record, which was result of Seagate lawsuit.
While Samsung had founded about the bankruptcy on the date of jury selection itself, but bankruptcy was discovered only after Korean manufacturer lost the case in August.
Now, Samsung has already filed the motion and Apple has also submitted its response to the court, it is all up to Judge Koh to make a decision.