Samsung Says Jury Foreman Tainted Decision in Apple vs. Samsung

Samsung Headquarters in Seoul

Samsung Headquarters in  Seoul

Although it has already been decided, Samsung requested to throw out its $1 billion Apple vs. Samsung trial verdict. That is after it claimed that jury foreman Velvin Hogan’s decision is biased. The company also added that Hogan failed to disclose a previous lawsuit and bankruptcy, which led to a tainted decision.

Velvin Hogan’s Jury Duty and Bankruptcy Issue

In a report posted by Bloomberg, Samsung contends that Hogan failed to disclose with presiding Judge Lucy Koh about Velvin Hogan’s personal bankruptcy from 1993. The company also added that the jury foreman had a lawsuit from former employer, Seagate Technology. His presence in jury deliberations, in turn, may have colored the final verdict.

Furthermore, the South Korean tech giant noted Hogan’s statement to media outlets after the verdict. Samsung argues that it is a sign that he didn’t answer the court’s questions “truthfully” in order to “secure a seat in the jury.”

The company called the jury foreman’s link with Seagate a “substantial strategic partnership.” They also noted that the lawyer who filed a complaint against Hogan in 1993 is married to an attorney who works for Quinn Emanuel Uruqhart & Sullivan, which happens to be the law firm that represents Samsung in its California case against Apple.

On the other hand, Hogan denied any misconduct. He also noted that court’s instructions that potential jurors must disclose any involvement in prior litigation for the past 10 years. Apparently, the Seagate suit fell outside of that time range.

Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time constraint, of course I would’ve disclosed that. I’m willing to go in front of the judge to tell her that I had no intention of being on this jury, let alone withholding anything that would’ve allowed me to be excused.

In relation to this, it was reported that Hogan was elected foreman partly because of his experience as an electrical engineer. He also claimed that the only dissenting vote was his own.

With regards to the jury selection process, the jury foreman said that he answered every question that the court asked him. He also pointed out that Samsung had every opportunity to question him.

Thus, he was surprised to hear that the Korean company was not aware of the history referred to in Tuesday’s filing, despite the fact that the lawyer cited in the claim is married to another lawyer working for the firm that represents the company. Because of this, Hogan is questioning Samsung whether the company let him in the jury “just to an excuse for a new trial if it didn’t go in their favor.”

Image Source: Samsung  Headquarters in Seoul /Wikimedia Commons

Leave a Comment