In an effort to overturn a billion dollar jury verdict arising from a patent infringement lawsuit brought by Apple, Samsung has filed a motion for new trial alleging among other things juror misconduct. The motion for new trial available here alleges that the jury foreman (Hogan) "failed to answer truthfully during voir dire." The motion also alleges that Hogan introduced "incorrect and extraneous legal standards" during deliberations. With respect to juror misconduct, Samsung has not presented a particularly strong case for overturning the jury's verdict.
Here is the response by Apple which was filed yesterday. As an initial matter, Apple argues that Samsung waived its right to raise claims of juror dishonesty because Samsung could have discovered the alleged "lies" by Hogan before the verdict. Apple also claims that Hogan was not dishonest. Instead, Apple asserts that the questions posed to Hogan were not specific enough. Here is the language from Apple's brief:
When asked, “[h]ave you . . . ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness,” Mr. Hogan described a 2008 technology ownership lawsuit. He was never asked if there were other lawsuits or a bankruptcy,and hence never failed to answer a question truthfully.
With respect to the issue of Hogan introducing extraneous information during deliberations, Apple's motion states that such claims cannot be considered by the court subject to Rule 606(b). As some are aware, Federal Rule of Evidence 606(b) greatly limits the court's ability to review juror deliberations. In examining both motions, it appears that Apple has the better argument. Judges generally are hesitant to overturn jury decisions absent very compelling circumstances which do not appear to be present here.
For more background on the Apple v. Samsung patent infringement case go here.
