14 DAY TRIAL // The overwhelming defeat that Samsung suffered in San Jose, California, in its patent war with Apple, has caused many reactions, and the backlash from Samsung's supporters hit not only Apple and its fans, but the case's jury, more specifically the foreman.
On October 2, Samsung filed paperwork in which it requested that the entire trial in the US be reset on the grounds of patent issues, damage payments tally and juror misconduct.
Basically, the company seeks to restart the whole fight over whether or not its Galaxy tablets and smartphones are Apple copies.
Jury misconduct is a term that defines occasions when the jurors fail to follow a judge's instructions and give a biased verdict.
The motion was put together not long after the jury foreman Velvin Hogan participated in a couple of interviews, the latter of which did not end very well.
Long story short, he was the one that guided the other jurors in their deliberations, and Samsung believes he called upon his own experience with the patent system instead of following the orders issued by Judge Lucy Koh.
What's more, Hogan failed to mention that he was involved in a legal fight with Seagate back in 1993. Samsung owns part of Seagate's shares, so there is a hint of implied bias on Hogan's part here.
The damages of over $1 billion / 770 million Euro that it will have to pay Apple if it doesn't get a new trial, or at least an appeal, is obviously a strong motivation for the company.
Apple isn't very happy though. In fact, it has been noted that the Cupertino-based giant has filed a motion of its own, 30 pages-long, in which, naturally, argues in favor of the jury's findings. It even says that Samsung essentially swept the Seagate matter under the rug by not bringing it up during the actual trial. The whole filing can be found here.
Obviously, the patent war between these two is getting back in force. That Apple has to publicly apologize to its enemy across the Atlantic, and advertise that Galaxy Tab is not an iPad copy (with no way out of it this time), only makes everything more bizarre than ever. Judge Koh will have to decide if going forward with the patent litigation while doing the opposite in Europe qualifies as a blatant lie.