CNET también está disponible en español.

Ir a español

Don't show this again

Phones

Judge to review Samsung's juror bias claim in Apple case

The court will hear Samsung's claim that the jury foreman in its patent case with Apple was biased due to previous dealings with a partner.

There could be quite an interesting postscript to the patent case in which Apple won $1 billion from Samsung. Our sister site CNET reports that Judge Lucy Koh has agreed to examine Samsung's claims that the jury foreman concealed crucial information that stopped him being impartial.

Samsung is arguing that Vel Hogan failed to disclose that in 1993 he was sued by Seagate, where he used to work. The lawsuit drove Hogan to bankruptcy. Samsung reckons its "substantial strategic relationship"with Seagate would have led the foreman to steer the jury to find in favour of Apple.

Samsung also claims Apple knew about Hogan's past dealings with Seagate, but chose not to say anything about it.

"At the December 6, 2012 hearing, the Court will consider the questions of whether the jury foreperson concealed information during voir dire [speaking on oath], whether any concealed information was material, and whether any concealment constituted misconduct," Judge Koh wrote.

"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."

It's tricky to overturn a jury decision based on alleged misconduct, though. What makes it even more unlikely is the fact that Hogan did 'fess up he was involved in a previous lawsuit when asked by Judge Koh. He didn't give all the details, but then he wasn't asked.

Even if this attempt fails, don't expect Samsung to take it lying down. You can be sure it'll pull a load more appeals out of somewhere. Apple is now asking for another $700 million, after all. I don't care how well your phones and tablets are selling, that's still a serious chunk of change.

Does Samsung stand a chance? Should Apple bleed it for another $700 million? Let me know what you reckon in the comments, or over on Facebook.