Samsung has worked hard to question the credibility of the jury foreman from the infamous Apple v. Samsung case, in which Apple was awarded a billion dollar patent judgment.
Black Friday 2017 Deals: Find Great Deals on Android Smartphones, TV’s, Smart Speakers, Chromebooks and More.
The matter will be put to rest once and for all during a December 6 hearing before Federal District Judge Lucy Koh. Koh will require everyone to put their cards on the table, so Apple will have to reveal what its lawyers knew about jury foreman Velvin Hogan before the trial began.
Samsung maintains that Hogan’s former employment and lawsuit with Seagate, a “substantial strategic relationship” of Samsung’s, biased Hogan’s opinion in the case. The former lawsuit did lead to Hogan’s filing for personal bankruptcy in the early 90’s.
Judge Koh wrote the following about the upcoming case:
On October 30, 2012, Samsung filed a motion to compel Apple to disclose the circumstances and timing of Apple’s discovery of certain information regarding the jury foreperson. On November 2, 2012, Apple filed an opposition. At the December 6, 2012 hearing, the Court will consider the questions of whether the jury foreperson concealed information during voir dire, whether any concealed information was material, and whether any concealment constituted misconduct. An assessment of such issues is intertwined with the question of whether and when Apple had a duty to disclose the circumstances and timing of its discovery of information about the foreperson.
Despite Hogan’s former involvement with Seagate, this case is likely to be very difficult for Samsung to win. Hogan did mention that he had been previously involved in a lawsuit while the Samsung v. Apple case was still underway. At the time, however, no one asked him the extent of his experience in court.
On December 6, the court will attempt to determine if there was intentional deceit on the part of Apple and / or the jury foreman, or if this whole matter will be a failed attempt to avoid paying the hefty court ruling.
Image Source: Bloomberg TV