#Samsung $AAPL Quinn Emmanuel Jury Misconduct Statements Filing

This is the rare case where juror misconduct requires new trial because the jury foreman withheld crucial information at the very moment it was most important that he reveal it. Apple also fails to refute the evidentiary and legal errors warranting the Court’s relief. And review of the jury’s damages awards shows, down to the dollar, the serious errors that require remittitur.

Down to the dollar. That was probably fun, because the math warranted an F. In addition to the voir dire issue, there is this:

Once inside the jury room, Mr. Hogan acted as a “de facto technical expert” who touted his high-tech experience to bring the divided jury together. Dkt. 2013-1, ¶11. Contrary to this Court’s instructions (e.g., Dkt. 1893 at Instr. Nos. 24, 26, 27, 31- 33, 49-51), he told other jurors incorrectly that an accused device infringes a utility patent unless it is “entirely different” (id., ¶15); that a prior art reference could not be invalidating unless that reference was “interchangeable” (id., ¶14, 16); and that invalidating prior art must be currently in use (id., ¶17). He thus failed “to listen to the evidence, not to consider extrinsic facts, [and] to follow the judge’s instructions.” 151 F.3d at 983.5