In the run up to the hearing on Thursday 6 December, the Apple v Samsung battle is back on. The latest new filing in preparation for Thursday's court date is Apple's claim that it knew nothing about the background of the jury foreman.
Back in October Samsung filed a request for a new trial, claiming that jury foreman Velvin Hogan (pictured) failed to disclose that 20 years ago he was in litigation with Seagate – for whom Samsung is a major investor.
Apple filed papers on Friday that revealed that after jury selection on 30 July, the company's lawyers "became aware" that Hogan had filed for bankruptcy, but didn't examine the bankruptcy file. Apple claimed that nobody from its in-house litigation team or outside counsel knew that Hogan's lawsuit was with Seagate until Samsung brought it up in post-trial briefs, writes Ars Technica.
The jury foreman has speculated that Samsung only allowed him on the jury so that they would have an excuse for a new trial if it didn’t go in their favour.
Follow Karen Haslam on Twitter / Follow MacworldUK on Twitter
Related:
Judge Koh agrees to re-examine roles of Apple v Samsung jury foreman
Samsung wants a retrial, says jury foreman had litigation with partner Seagate
Samsung claims jury misconduct, tries to overturn Apple verdict
Apple v Samsung verdict concern: Forman of jury owns smartphone patents, claim
Contact Us
Digg
It's easy and free to get the latest news headlines, reviews and opinions straight to your email inbox. Sign up NOW to make sure you receive the latest Mac news, reviews and tutorials on your favourite topics.
Comments received
yragsapo said on Mon, 03 Dec 2012
When $1 Billion is at stake, these companies will pull out all the stops. As long as Apple was not privy to any info not available to Samsung by any reasonable means, then this should not matter. It is entirely credible that Samsung knew about the foreman's suit (2 decades ago) against Seagate and held it in their pocket as a future grounds for appeal. In the NFL, if the QB sees that the defense drew a flag for being offside or lines up in the neutral zone, they can throw a bomb and not worry about their pass being intercepted, as if it is, the play is called back, anyhow, because of the penalty. Same strategy, different game.
Disclaimer
Opinions expressed here are those of the writers and do not reflect those of Macworld. Macworld accepts no responsibility legal or otherwise for their accuracy of content.
Click here to read the house rules.
Click here for the latest reader comments