On the receiving end of an adverse $1.05 billion judgement at the hands of Apple, Samsung is showing no signs that they’re planning to give up and fork over any money any time soon.
Not only has Samsung recently added the iPhone 5 to their list of products that allegedly infringe upon a number of their patents, but they’re also trying to attain a dismissal of the aforementioned trial verdict that didn’t go in their favor this Summer.
According to Samsung, jury foreman Velvin Hogan was asked during the jury selection process whether or not he had ever been involved in lawsuits before. Samsung claims that Hogan failed to disclose that a) he had previously filed for bankruptcy and that b) he had once been sued by Seagate Technology, his former employer.
What’s more, Samsung points out that the company has a “substantial strategic relationship” with Seagate and, believe it or not, the lawyer who initially filed the complaint against Hogan is married to an attorney who works for the firm that represented Samsung in its trial against Apple, Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan.
In requesting a completely new trial, Samsung writes: “Mr. Hogan’s failure to disclose the Seagate suit raises issues of bias that Samsung should have been allowed to explore.”
Hogan, in a phone interview yesterday, denied that there was any misconduct, saying the court instructions for potential jurors required disclosure of any litigation they were involved in within the last 10 years — and that the 1993 bankruptcy and related litigation involving Seagate fell well outside that time range.
“Had I been asked an open-ended question with no time constraint, of course I would’ve disclosed that,” Hogan said, referring to the bankruptcy and related litigation. “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.”
Hogan said once he was selected as a juror he “took it as an honor” because the suit was related to his job as an electrical engineer, which he’s done for almost 40 years.
Just some more legal maneuvering on the part of Samsung, and Hogan even raised an interesting point – perhaps Samsung played mum all along knowing that they could then leverage Hogan’s past to secure a new trial should the original verdict go their way. It’s a stretch, to be sure, but given how Samsung’s legal team was less then forthcoming at times, and certainly prone to shady legal behavior, who’s to say.