Jury Foreman Explains How A Verdict Was Reached In Apple, Samsung Case

After covering the Apple vs Samsung case as a news outlet for the past month, we are finally receiving some insight of what the experience was like being part of the jury. A jury foreman has recently conducted an interview with Bloomberg TV, and he was able to explain how Apple completed their landslide win over Samsung.

Vel Hogan, speaking to Bloomberg, said he thought the case may go Samsung’s way during early parts of the trial. When the end neared and the jury had received the booklet of over 600 questions, Apple of-coarse had the better side of the case.

Hogan explains how an “a-ha” moment helped the jury decide the case:

Some were not sure of how prior art could either render a patent acceptable or whether it could invalidate it. What we did is we started talking about one and when the day was over and I was at home, thinking about that patent claim by claim, limit by limit, I had what we would call an a-ha moment and I suddenly decided I could defend this if it was my patent…And with that, I took that story back to the jury and laid it out for them. They understood the points I was talking about and then we meticulously went patent by patent and claim by claim against the test that the judge had given us, because each patent had a different legal premise to judge on. We got those all sorted out and decided which ones were valid and which ones were not.

Even funnier, at a specific point “we picked one juror to chose each [accused] product, turning it on close to his chest in a darkened jury room and not telling us which one it was. He turned one [device] around quickly and then another and then both–it absolutely made it clear,” mentions Hogan. (via EETimes)

After it was determined Samsung infringed among Apple’s patents, the Cupertino company was awarded nearly $1.05 billion. Here is how that number was calculated:

In the evidence, Apple had declared that Samsung had cost them in profits 35% of their revenue. On the other hand, Samsung said that it is because they took out operating costs and the value is 12%. Three of us had been through the process in our careers of dealing with financial documents. I understood P&L statements as well as the other to. What we did was look at it against our matrix of what infringed and what did not. We determined that in our experience, the percentage was not 12%, and it certainly was not 35%. It should be closer between 13% to 15%. We zeroed in on 14%. That became the magic number. Then we did our own calculations for each of the areas, adding those up with royalties that were entitled for some of the items. And we cut that value in half. When we added them together and tallied them up, that is the number we came up with.

Hogan also happened to express details on the 8 products Apple will attempt to ban from the United States. He notes Apple “probably will be” successful in attempt to ban the products.

To view the full 17 minute interview with Bloomberg TV, click here.

[via Cult Of Mac]

Founder and Editor-in-Chief of iPhoneinCanada.ca. Follow me on Twitter, and @iPhoneinCanada, and on Google+.

  • Matt

    “I had what we would call an a-ha moment and I suddenly decided I could defend this if it was my patent”

    I don’t get it. He decided to take Apple’s point of view and argue for it? I thought they were supposed to consider both sides of the argument.

  • RyanStOnge

    I think what he meant by “a-ha” was a realization. He may have realized the form factor of Samsung’s phones changed significantly after the iPhones release. Would’ve been nice if he explained it in-depth.

  • Apple_Sauce

    First of all, this was a Kangaroo Court.
    Second, patent trials have no business having a jury of non-technical people that don’t have a clue. Did anyone check to see if the jurors had Apple Stock ?
    This should have been a mistrial. What happened to a judgement based on the actual damages caused, the numbers associated to the alleged patent violations were a joke.
    The whole decision was an example of how the U.S. patent system is a joke, and how the U.S. court system can also be a joke.
    It wouldn’t surprise me if people were getting paid off.