Home

Share this Story

Samsung Not a Fan of Vel Hogan Either, Wants Apple Patent Verdict Thrown Out Over Misconduct

Remember our pal, Vel Hogan? I’m sure you can’t forget the interview he gave after leading a jury into finding that Samsung had violated all sorts of Apple patents, right? Well, Samsung isn’t a fan of his past, which he managed to leave out during jury questioning. Because of that past, they are asking that the verdict from the trial be thrown out over jury misconduct. 

That past of Hogan’s, apparently involves Seagate (whom Samsung has a “substantial strategic relationship” with) suing him and essentially putting him into bankruptcy back in 1993. To be fair to Vel, the judge only asked that he reveal any lawsuits that he had been involved in over the last 10 years, so by our count, 1993 is well out of that range. Still, Samsung is not happy about it. In fact, Samsung said that “Mr. Hogan’s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore.” They also claim that he failed to answer the jury questions truthfully so that he could secure a seat on the jury, a position he said he took as an “honor.”

Hogan, on the other hand, is saying what you would expect, that he thinks this is an excuse of Samsung’s. He’s openly wondering if Samsung didn’t allow him to be on the jury in case of a loss, so that then they would have someone to point a finger at.

My thoughts are this. Sure, the guy was asked to go back 10 years, but since he had prior legal troubles that involved a company close to Samsung, don’t you think he should have mentioned that? For a guy who claims to know so much about the patent system (having owned one himself) and who seems to think of himself as some sort of an authority on the issues at stake, you are telling me that it never crossed his mind to bring up his past? Then again, where was Samsung in doing their research of this guy during the selection process? I’m not a lawyer, so I’ll leave those questions to the experts in the building.

Via:  Bloomberg

  • http://www.facebook.com/eddie.j.camacho Eddie J Camacho

    I wouldn’t be surprised if he is working under Apple’s payroll

  • cb2000a

    The more that this guy talks the more ammo Samsung has in an appeal.

  • Droid4LifeDawg

    Just wondering out loud, none of the Jurors owned an Iphone or Android :-)

  • CIFchamp24

    Wether the guy lied or not…. Another miss by Samsung’s legal team. Honestly…..

  • Pete Austin

    If you read the transcript you’ll find no
    mention of a 10 year limit, which the jury foreman says was the reason
    why he didn’t speak up about how he was sued by a company which has
    Samsung as the largest shareholder. Indeed another juror revealed
    information about a case that was older – search for “1998″.
    Here’s the transcript: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex1.pdf

  • Royal2000H

    Typo? “He’s openly wondering if Samsung didn’t allow him to be on the jury in case of a loss” should be “..if Samsung allowed him to be..”

    • DanKemple

      Not a typo, some people use the negative to prove a point. Like “He didn’t allow me to do just one thing” instead of “he allowed me to do more than one thing”. It’s semantics really but both are correct. The statement still makes sense if you re-read it under these circumstances.

  • nightscout13

    Maybe Hogan is right, maybe Samsung deliberately kept him on the jury as a wild card, in case the suit didn’t end in Sammy’s favor. And now they can use him as a fall back plan :) Genius!

  • nightscout13

    He is a maggot of society.

  • Ethan

    I don’t know the legal aspect of this, but as an observer (although a slightly biased one), it seems that his “expertise” should have been mentioned during jury selection if he was going to use it as the basis for his entire thought system throughout the trial. So yes, I agree that the verdict should at least be re-examined.

  • http://twitter.com/mimrixmike Frettfreak

    i mean, would it REALLY be a shock to anyone if we found out this guy was in apples pocket?? really? i wouldnt put it past them for a second honestly.

  • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=10602828 Mike Hilal

    Bout time sammy grew a set

  • Greyhame

    A great read. Here’s hoping Judge Koh, unlike the jury, contemplates the ramifications of this verdict on the tech world, and narrows the scope of apple’s patents.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielfisher/2012/08/27/apples-samsung-victory-shows-patents-arent-just-for-inventions-any-more/2/

  • http://www.matthewdlyons.com/ matthewdlyons

    I’m a lawyer, but I don’t practice in the traditional sense. I do government relations. Nevertheless, here’s my take.

    Samsung wouldn’t do “research” on prospective jurors during the voir dire, but they could ask probative questions, based on answers on the jury questionnaire. Even with that, attorney’s cannot really interrogate prospective jurors.

    I’m not necessarily defending Hogan, because I don’t know his true motives; but I’m going to give a pass on declaring the case against Seagate. First of all, is it common knowledge that Samsung has a substantial relationship in Seagate? FWIW, I follow tech pretty closely, and I didn’t know that. Secondly, Hogan was under no obligation to disclose information outside of the dates required on the questionnaire. It is going to be pretty hard toss out the verdict of this case solely on this issue. As others have offered, It may not produce a reversal, but I think poking holes in the jury’s understanding and application of statutes would be more fruitful for Samsung.

    It’s tough, because on the trade dress claims, I think Apple nailed Samsung pretty cleanly. Some of the use patents are a little too amorphous for my liking, and could be more fertile ground for an appeal.

    • EDNYLaw

      As a practicing attorney (state and federal) I totally agree. There is no research to be done during voir dire. It’s a pretty cut and dry process that they try to get done as quickly as possible. To ask the question that would have revealed if Hogan was ever involved in a lawsuit against a company affiliated with Samsung would probably fall outside the scope of what is normally asked during voir dire.

      I agree that some of the stuff Samsung got nailed on, but the patenting of a rectangle with rounded corners will fall. The 9th Circuit is pretty lenient and I don’t think they’ll allow a $1 Billion+ verdict to stand given the shaky ground upon which it rests. From everything I’ve read about the trial, it seems like Judge Koh definitely showed some bias by not allowing certain evidence (that would have been admissible) into the trial. District courts have a large discretion to determine whether evidence should be let it, namely whether the probative value substantially outweighs the prejudical effect. That little sentence right there can basically override a lot of otherwise inadmissible evidence. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals FTW (hopefully).

      • Greyhame

        Agreed. Would someone honestly confuse an iphone for a Samsung device? No. To rule apple’s trade dress was infringed to the tune of 1 BILLION dollars is far in excess of the actual damage Samsung may or may not have caused.

        • Greyhame

          It’s as if apple assumes no other phones were available as alternatives to the iphone.

          • EDNYLaw

            Yeah, if it was with a different judge not down the street from Apple headquarters, I think the verdict would have been quite different. I don’t know how anyone, looking at the physical appearance could say the devices look the same. Similar, sure… but what the hell is an OEM supposed to do, make circular phones? I do think Sammy went a little overboard copying some of Apple’s icons and stuff like that, but that’s Touchwiz and not an indictment of Android itself, merely Sammy’s take on it. I think this is part of the reason why Google is really trying to establish it’s Nexus line as it’s own independent product that is Android, not merely “android-based.”

          • CIFchamp24

            We all know it is touchwiz and not vanilla android. That’s why apple sued samsung and not google….

          • EDNYLaw

            “We” (as in those on this site) may know the difference but for the other 99% of Android users, they wouldn’t know it (either through technological illiteracy or willful ignorance or what have you) if you spent the next year of your life trying to explain it to them.

          • Justin Swanson

            Regarding the icons “copying” the only one I fault Samsung for was the gallery… and that is a reach-fault. iOS has a Sunflower, Touchwiz has some orange flower. Memo icon? Why wouldn’t it be a memo pad? Contacts icon? Why wouldn’t it be an address book? I was going to fault the Green dial icon until my wife said to me “What color has the call button been on phones since forever?”, “Oh, green… that’s right…”

            I will say that the shapes are similar and they kinda do look similar, and to an unknowing person (never owned a smartphone or doesn’t care about phones/tech) they probably do look the same. But that doesn’t mean someone mistakenly bought a Galaxy S instead of an iPhone.

          • JazzoRenee

            Palm point had icon before everyone, so Apple can sit down with that too.

            Exactly to everything @JustinSwanson just said.

          • JazzoRenee

            That isn’t a true statement either, I know plenty of people with Android devices that don’t visit this site and they know the difference. In fact my 76 year old god mother knows the difference, to the point that she said she DID NOT want an Iphone on her next upgrade.

            So, this WHOLE argument about people not telling the phones apart is beginning to loose weight and it is simply garbage. I said it before and I’ll say it again, if your product is “superior”,prove it.

          • EDNYLaw

            I’m not saying you have to visit these sites to know the difference, I’m saying the average consumer. I work with people from 24-80 yrs old and someone at every age range has asked me whether my Galaxy Nexus is an iPhone. There’s only about 3 people at my office that actually know the difference between android phones. I love Android and despise Apple products (i want to throw my iPod against a wall and burn the pieces) but the vast majority of users (though it is changing, thank god iSheep are the most annoying people ever) just want an Apple. I work with a girl who’s 24 and a teacher, yet when I tried to explain why getting an iPhone 5 is a step back in time and listed the numerous advantages of Android, she went ahead and bought an iPhone 5 because her friends had it.

        • JazzoRenee

          I would.

    • dhirensavalia

      I don’t really know anything about law. Just wanted to get that out of the way.

      Wouldn’t the fact that he himself brought his past into the courtroom, by telling the jurors that he owned a patent in the distant past (a decade ago), make his past relevant to the verdict of the lawsuit?

      • EDNYLaw

        There is great deference given to jury verdicts, unless there was outside influence or some other illegal activity, they will not overturn a jury’s verdict because of what happened behind closed doors. If, on the otherhand, Sammy appealed or put in a motion to re-argue, then they could over turn the verdict based on Sammy’s arguments (no reasonable person could have come to this conclusion, judge misapprehended the facts, new information…) but not based on what one juror said while deliberating. Federal court is pretty strict about not questioning the deliberation process.

        • dhirensavalia

          Thanks for clearing that up!

  • Adam

    Is this gonna be forever???

  • Josh

    In my mind, the bigger issues are that

    A) Hogan misled the jury based on “incorrect and extraneous” legal standards:In post-verdict interviews with the media, Mr. Hogan said that he told his fellow jurors an accused device infringes a design patent based on “look and feel”, that an accused device infringes a utility patent unless it is “entirely different”, that a prior art reference could not be invalidating unless that reference was “interchangeable” , and that invalidating prior art must be currently in use. These incorrect and extraneous legal standards had no place in the jury room. (paraphrased from Samsungs filing, via http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770)

    B) Hogan led the jury to ignore instructions they were given, as well as the jury’s role within the overall patent system. He led the jury believe that the patents in question could be assumed valid, and that it was not up to the jury to question their validity. via http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20121002201632770 :
    Demon-Xanth:
    Did you have the opportunity to ask “Is this something that should be patentable?” during the trial?Velvin Hogan @Demon-Xanth
    No, however it was not the function of this jury to ask that. We were bound to use the law as it is today. The patents were issued the judge instructed us not to second guess the current patent system.
    This is in direct contradiction to instructions the jury was given.
    C) Hogans reasoning behind items A and B above can be traced to an “Aha!” moment he mentions during his Bloomberg interview in which he decides that he could defend the patents in question if they were his own. This is a direct admission that he brought his own experience involving the patent system into the jury room. During the voir dire, he is explicity asked “Would you be able to decide this case based solely on the evidence that’s admitted during the trial and not on previous technological patent experience that you have?”, to which he responded “No”

    • Josh

      apologies, he responded “YES”, meaning he had sworn NOT to bring his previous patent experience into the jury room

      • Josh

        And the actual question (addressed to Hogan and another prospective juror) “You all have a lot of experience, but will you be able to decide this case based solely on the evidence that’s admitted during the trial?”

    • Josh
  • Greyhame

    A little surprised they didn’t mention anything about how the prior art they submitted was repeatedly rejected. It goes to show the stories, about how they were slow to submit them, were true. Samsung needs to invest in a much more capable lawyer team.

  • Robert Jakiel

    Between his willful misleading of the jury and ignoring specific instructions by the judge to this this case is going to get beaten to death. Apple will be lucky if it sees any money within the next 5 years. Groklaw has an excellent write up on this clown and this verdict will undoubtedly be tossed after an appeal.

  • Capt. Crunch

    Wow so the trial was rigged from the start.

    • Galaxy-S3

      Rigged? This is one guy out of 12. Not buying it.

      • Capt. Crunch

        He could have persuaded people to join his side, never doubt the power of one person’s hatred.

      • http://twitter.com/savagejeep SavageJeep

        Jury foreman. That’s a lot of pull and authority that might “guide a jury” one way or another.

      • Adam

        John Grisham’s “Runaway Jury”…. please enjoy.

  • Stewie

    They missed the boat, he looks like a tool and shouldn’t have been selected. Just sayin …

  • trumpet444

    Wasn’t it something like 2 people on the jury owned smartphones? That would be perfectly stacked in favor of apple. People who dont know jack about cars would see a ferrari and call it a lamborghini

    • DeathfireD

      The trial, for the most part, was at a stand still until Vel Hogan had his “Ah ha” moment about his patent and how he’d defend it if he was in Apple’s shoes. He confesses in his interview that this helped a great deal in persuading the others. In other words this man played a great deal in turning this from an otherwise unbiased trial into a one sided battle. This is why people who own patents or have been involved in a patent trial should not be jury members, ever, period.

  • KB26

    Holy crap, the rounded corners, the grids of icons, the icon images, it’s all coming to me now! Not.

  • Southrncomfortjm

    I’d concentrate on the fact that the jury clearly misunderstood the law than attacking the jury foreman. A strong/good argument looks bad next to a stupid or crazy argument, and attacking the jury foreman for dishonesty is crazy and/or stupid.

    • Greyhame

      Not sure how else you try to prove a jury person’s (foreman, no less) testimony should be reconsidered, than by proving s/he is dishonest/biased?

      • Southrncomfortjm

        I’m saying stop attacking the foreman personally by calling him a lawyer and instead concentrate on the serious misunderstanding of the law. Don’t call him a lair, call him ignorant of the law he was instructed to follow.

        • LegalAmerican

          If they ask him if he’s been in any other lawsuits in any way, and he says no? That’s not ignorance. That is dishonesty.

          • Southrncomfortjm

            I’m saying skip all stuff on vior dire since its a loser argument and just concentrate on the jury deliberations where they clearly misunderstood the law.

        • Greyhame

          hah, funny how you “accidentally” misplaced the word liar with lawyer in your first sentence.

          • Southrncomfortjm

            That is funny.

  • Bret Farris

    From my own experience at being on a jury, I don’t think Samsung could have done any research on people during the selection process. They can’t leave the courtroom with personal information on the potential jurors to investigate them. They have to rely on the questions the judge and the law allow in the courtroom. It may be different in other states but, that was my experience. So, I don’t think Samsung is at fault for not knowing enough about this guy ahead of time.

    • Guest

      In NC, law firms know more about potential jurors than you would imagine. Work IT for a law firm in NC. Seen the Jury Selection list. Lots of infos!

  • Superguy

    It’s also possible that Samsung couldn’t exclude them. My understanding is that each side gets to toss so many candidates “just because” and then, they can object to a limited amount of people in the pool. It’s possible that Samsung could have already “used up” its objections and was stuck with the guy whether they wanted him or not.

  • brimonster

    I’m a lawyer (though not an IP attorney) and I don’t think this will get the verdict thrown out, but this, along with that interview, will sure help on appeal. Especially the part where he “figured out” or however he put that a device was infringing. Ultimately, I think Samsung may end up loving this idiot, if they don’t already.

    • Southrncomfortjm

      Even if they can’t refer specifically to the jury misinterpreting the law, all the judges will know about it (Koh and/or appeals judges) and that will probably weigh on their decision. If anything, it will lessen the amount of deference they would normally give to the jury.
      They should love him since he wears his ignorance of the law like a badge of honor.

  • TheWenger

    This guy just looks lost.

    • flosserelli

      He’s ruminating about how to spend that fat check he’s getting from Apple.

    • KB26

      He’s using apple maps xD

      • Ethan

        Oh, well played, Sir.

  • Josh

    The “10 years” part claimed by Hogan does not match up with the voir dire transcript, which does not mention any specific timeframe. The exact wording was “Have 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?”

    Source: http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex1.pdf

    • fakekellex

      kellex, gotta fix this!

    • zepfloyd

      THIS. The question was EVER, not 10 years. He lied.

      • https://plus.google.com/110773438514346746273/ tjhrulz

        Also his patent is a technology patent on video streaming, yet he is non practicing sounds like a patent troll to me.

        • michael arazan

          You can’t even find my highschool and college transcripts online or anywhere unless you know what schools I attended back in the 90′s, even back then my records were in a closed system that couldn’t get out, and I paid for my own schooling out of pocket working 2 jobs, no loans or grants making it even harder to trace. Lot’s of information and documents got stored and filed in a box somewhere and most were never updated to a newer system of computers os and formatted disk for different pc’s before the jump from floppy to digital. Easier to through everything in a box and put into storage, for a just in case. Technology sucked in the 90′s.

    • S.Ober

      Hold him in contempt!

      • Lactose_the_Intolerant

        Pretty sure we already hold him in ‘contempt’.

        • Chris

          Well, contempt is doubtful. They didn’t ask him to exhaustively list every single case, they just asked if he or his immediate family had ever been involved in a case. His answer was only the latest case, which by implication means its the *only case*. Either way, Samsung has a point, that by not stating he had been involved in THREE lawsuits, his answer was pretty misleading.

          • http://btwnworlds.tumblr.com/ Lou G

            Which can be jury misconduct and can be contempt of court. It also would cause jury nullification which would throw the case out.

          • michael arazan

            Could be a mistrial, in which they would have to do this all over again

          • http://btwnworlds.tumblr.com/ Lou G

            by ‘throw the case out’ I meant that particular trial. sorry, I should have said what I meant.

          • Lactose_the_Intolerant

            Noun:The feeling that a person or a thing is beneath consideration, worthless, or deserving scorn.

            I was referring to public opinion — not the position of the court :p

  • flosserelli

    I think Samsung has a valid argument. If the tables were turned, and Apple had been found guilty of patent infringement that resulted in a billion-dollar settlement with this guy as the jury foreman, what do you think Apple would be saying now? Or, for that matter, any other company in this situation?

  • Colonel Pannick

    Its been reported elsewhere that the 10 years thing was made up by Hogan
    The actual transcripts of his questioning gave no timeframe.

  • trumpet444

    How many billions of dollars are ((sometimes)) wasted every year on this crap? What if Apple, Samsung, Motorola, etc, etc didn’t have to walk on eggshells with some of these patents and instead put that same money into R&D?

    • moelsen8

      The DROID iPhone S4 MAXX 4G LTE Developer Edition Epic Touch Pro Global.. S (for speed)?

  • pardonmyfreedom

    He was not asked to go back ten years. The judge used the word “ever”.

    From Groklaw: “The next question is, have 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?”http://www.groklaw.net/pdf4/ApplevSamsung-1991Ex1.pdf
    Keep digging the hole Hogan. You know Samsung’s gotta love whenever this guy opens his mouth. Time to lawyer up.

    • Prime7

      Additionally, the particulars of that suit–where he was bankrupted by a Samsung partner company–had major consequences that are not so easily forgotten, even after ten years.

  • http://twitter.com/Xeneize480 Xeneize480

    FTP!!!

  • http://www.droid-life.com/ Frank 2.0

    Hardly surprised.

  • triangle8

    Vel Hogam, welcome to the hall of shame!

  • http://www.droid-life.com Kellex B

    Waiting for EC8CH in 5…4..3…2…

    • droidify

      you waiting bro?
      j/k

      • Mack

        Mctypething…

        • droidify

          Ha! I wasn’t sure if anyone would catch that. I haven’t seen him around here in about a year.

          • EC8CH

            yeah… but angelface is back

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=10215724 Raj Bhatt

            And angelface is way worse I think.

          • EC8CH

            Oh you still crying???

            It’s obvious you just not intelgent enough to know how awesome Motorola products are.

          • http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=10215724 Raj Bhatt

            He was also trying to convince me that rooting is a joke ಠ_ಠ

            I don’t know why I even fed that troll.

    • EC8CH

      HA!

      Forgot throwing out this verdict based on the idiocy of this guy’s reasoning.
      Throw it out instead because he is a liar.

      Great Post!