Apple, Inc. v. Samsung Elecs. Co.
| Decision Date | 17 December 2012 |
| Docket Number | Case No.: 11-CV-01846-LHK |
| Parties | APPLE, INC., a California corporation, Plaintiff, v. SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD., A Korean corporation; SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC., a New York corporation; SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC, a Delaware limited liability company, Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
On August 21, 2012, a jury returned a verdict that Samsung was liable to Apple for infringement and dilution of a range of patents and trade dresses. ECF No. 1890. Samsung has now filed a motion for a new trial. ECF No. 2013 ("Motion") at 3. Samsung alleges that the jury foreperson, Velvin Hogan, gave dishonest answers during voir dire, and that statements he made in interviews given after the verdict show that he was biased. Id. at 2-3. Specifically, Samsung claims that Mr. Hogan lied about his involvement nineteen years ago in a lawsuit with Seagate, a company in which Samsung is, as of 2011, a 9.6% shareholder. Samsung also argues that Mr. Hogan improperly presented extraneous prejudicial information during jury deliberations. Id. at 3.For the reasons explained below, Samsung's request for an evidentiary hearing and a new trial on these grounds is DENIED.
Jury selection in this case took place on July 30, 2012. The Court conducted extensive voir dire, and then allowed counsel for each side to question prospective jurors for an additional twenty minutes each. Transcript of Proceedings held on July 30, 2012 ("Tr.") at 212:1-4. The Court asked a number of questions to elicit factual information from prospective jurors about their experiences and potential relationships with the parties and the issues in the case. The Court also repeatedly questioned jurors as to their ability and willingness to be fair and impartial, and to follow the law as it was given to them.
Initially, the Court instructed jurors to "raise your hand if you have such strong feelings about this case, the parties, what the charges and the claims are that you could not be fair and impartial." Tr. at 45:5-9. Five prospective jurors raised their hands and were questioned further, but Mr. Hogan was not among them. The Court then asked whether any prospective juror knew any of the parties, witnesses, or attorneys in the case. Again, Mr. Hogan did not raise his hand. The Court then again asked prospective jurors to "raise your hand if what you have read or heard about this case would affect your ability to be fair and impartial to both sides." Tr. at 100:13-16. Mr. Hogan did not raise his hand. The Court went on to ask "if you've basically already formed an impression in your mind about - and this is for everybody - if you've basically already formed an impression in your mind about who you think ought to win this case based on what you've read." Tr. at 100:24-101:4. Two prospective jurors raised their hands, but Mr. Hogan did not. The Court continued its questioning, instructing prospective jurors: "If you cannot keep an open mind and you cannot decide this case based solely on the evidence that's admitted during this trial, based on what you've read previously about this case, raise your hand." Tr. at 101:13-17. Mr. Hogan did not raise his hand. The Court then asked Tr. at 101:24-102:3. Mr. Hogan did not raise his hand. The Court then asked, "does anyone else have any special interest, financial or otherwise, in the outcome of this trial?" Tr. at 102:7-9. Again, Mr. Hogan did not raise his hand.
The Court then moved on to the question of prospective jurors' ability to follow the law:
Now, many of you may have your own views about what our laws should be, but I just need to ask you one more time whether you would accept the instructions on the law that I give you and not insert and substitute your own personal views of what the laws should be. Whether you disagree or disagree with what I tell you the law is, will you accept it? If you cannot do that, will you please raise your hand?
Tr. at 103:16-25. Mr. Hogan did not raise his hand.
The Court then asked whether the prospective jurors had "been negatively impacted by the recent economic downturn?" Tr. at 104:2-4. Here, Mr. Hogan did raise his hand. He then had the following exchange with the Court:
The Court then asked prospective jurors, "[H]ave you or a family member or someone very close to you ever been involved in a lawsuit, either as a plaintiff, a defendant, or as a witness?" Tr. at 148:18-21. Mr. Hogan answered that "[i]n 2008, after my company went belly up, the programmer that worked for me filed a lawsuit against me and ultimately, across the next few months, it was dismissed and in such a fashion that neither one of us could sue the other one forthat matter." Tr. at 148:25-149:5. The Court then elicited a few further details, before asking whether there was "anything about that experience that would affect your ability to be fair and impartial to both sides in this case?" Tr. at 148:14-16. Mr. Hogan responded, "I don't believe so." Tr. at 149:17.
After questioning another prospective juror about lawsuit experience, the Court then returned to Mr. Hogan:
There was, however, an additional lawsuit in Mr. Hogan's past that Mr. Hogan did not disclose during this exchange: Mr. Hogan was sued by his former employer, Seagate, in 1993 (Seagate Tech., Inc. v. Hogan, Case No. MS-93-0919 (Santa Cruz Mun. Ct. Filed June 30, 1993)). Nor did he mention that he filed for personal bankruptcy six months after being sued by Seagate (In re Velvin R. Hogan and Carol K. Hogan, Case No. 93-58291-MM (Bankr. N.D. Cal. Dec. 27, 1993)), which appears, at least in part, to be due to that lawsuit. RT 148:25-150:11; Estrich Decl., Exs. A, B.
Next, the Court questioned prospective jurors about their experiences with the patent system. Mr. Hogan indicated that he had a patent for video compression software, which had been issued in 2008, and a second patent application that was currently pending. Tr. at 163:19-24. After hearing about another prospective juror's patent experience, the Court then asked both of them together:
Tr. at 165:14-18. The Court then asked the entire pool of prospective jurors, "If you have strong feelings or strong opinions about either the United States patent system or intellectual property laws, would you raise your hand, please?" No prospective jurors raised their hands.
The last portion of the Court's voir dire involved each prospective juror responding to a series of demographic and biographical questions about their education, profession, families, and hobbies. When Mr. Hogan's turn came, he said: Tr. at 190:19-23. The Court then asked Mr. Hogan to list the seven companies. He responded:
Okay. To begin with, I worked for a company that no longer exists called Caylis memories; then Memorex Corporation; then Storage Technology Corporation in Colorado; Digital Equipment Corporation in Colorado Springs; I worked for Seagate Technology; and the last company was - and then Micropolis Corporation, which no longer exists. And Quantum."
Tr. at 191:20-192:2. The Court engaged in no further questioning of Mr. Hogan, and turned the questioning over to the attorneys. Counsel for Samsung, William Price, asked Mr. Hogan several detailed questions:
To continue reading
Request your trial