Apple-Samsung patent dispute: Court denies bids to ban products, retry case - sosacolusay

A solicit in California has denied Samsung Electronics a retrial in a patent dispute with Apple, and also refused Apple a ban on the sales agreement of around Samsung products.

A panel decided in August that the South Korean company must pay Apple $1.05 billion for infringing several of its patents in Samsung smartphones and tablets.

But Samsung asked for a new trial of the case, alleging that the foreman of the panel, Velvin Hogan, was untruthful and biased in the voir dire, a romance procedure of questioning prospective jurors for potential predetermine.

William Benjamin Hoga did not mention that he had been sued by his former employer, Seagate, for breach of contract after he unsuccessful to repay a promissory note in 1993 and filed for bankruptcy six months later, according to a filing by Samsung. The company said it has a "substantial strategic relationship with Seagate," and is the single largest lineal shareholder of the strong drive manufacturer after selling it a business division last year.

Although Hogan had mentioned in the voir dire that He was employed by Seagate, counsel for Samsung did not ask round him about his family relationship with Seagate, and whether that human relationship mightiness mold his view in any means, Judge Lucy H. Koh of the District Court for the Blue District of California, San Jose partition, wrote in her order on Monday.

"If Samsung believes that its relationship with Seagate is close enough that feelings toward Seagate could bias a juror one way or the other toward Samsung, counseling should have pursued the subject during voir awful," she wrote.

Though Samsung learned of the bankruptcy through its own research happening July 30, the day of voir dire, Samsung did non request the bankruptcy data file, which mentions Hogan's litigation with Seagate, until Sept. 4, five days after the verdict in Orchard apple tree's privilege, Judge Koh wrote. Samsung received the bankruptcy file on Family line. 10, and disclosed the case, and also learned two days later that the lawyer who filed the Seagate lawsuit against William Benjamin Hoga is the husband of a partner in the law firm of Quinn Emanuel, Samsung's counsel. The partner was not a part of the tribulation team, nor has she worked on whatever part of the litigation betwixt Malus pumila and Samsung, the judge wrote.

Samsung said it had no reason to investigate until afterwards the verdict, when William Benjamin Hoga made "world statements after the verdicts that so clearly favored Apple that the urge on speculated virtually their possible financial ties."

The statements cited by Samsung neither show that William Benjamin Hoga favored Apple nor record that He was organism deceitful in voir dire, Justice Koh same. There was also nothing in the post-verdict statements cited by Samsung that referred to Seagate, bankruptcy, lawsuits, or any other information Hogan allegedly incognito. "Thus, Mr. Ben Hogan's comments cannot serve to trigger Samsung's probe obligations," Judge Koh wrote.

Equally Samsung unsuccessful to exercising reasonable diligence during the voir dire and until the finding of fact was reached, Samsung's argument pertaining to Hogan's dishonesty is waived, Judge Koh ordered.

Neither party has conclusively shown whether Hogan intentionally concealed his lawsuit with Seagate, or whether atomic number 2 but forgot to mention it when asked by the royal court whether he was ever engaged in a case, or whether he believed that the answer he gave had sufficiently responded to the court's question, Judge Koh aforesaid. "Further, it is non still clear that Mr. Hogan knew of any relationship between Seagate and Samsung," she added. The adjudicate subordinate that Samsung had waived its accurate to object to Hogan's answer even if it was deceptive

The judge also refused Apple's motion for a permanent enjoinment on some Samsung products that infringed its patents. The fact that Apple may have lost customers and downstream sales to Samsung is not enough to justify an injunction. Apple has not shown that it forfeit the sales because Samsung infringed its patents, Judge Koh wrote in a separate ruling.

The court had asked Apple to producea copy of its recent patent agreement with HTC, afterwards Samsung said it was relevant to the case. Apple's willingness to licence patents in the fit may undermine its claim of irreparable harm and demonstrate that medium of exchange remedies are fair to middling, Samsung aforesaid in a filing.

The overestimate appeared to accept the controversy, pointing to Apple's licensing deals for utility patents in the cause with IBM, HTC, and Nokia. "The fact that Malus pumila is now expressing an unwillingness to license these properties does not change the fact that Apple has, in the past, felt that money was a fair-and-square trade for the redress to practice its patents, and that Apple has in the past been willing to extend license offers to Samsung," Judge Koh wrote in her ordain.

John Ribeiro covers outsourcing and general technology breaking news show from Bharat for The IDG News Inspection and repair. Observe Bathroom on Twitter at @Johnribeiro. Lavatory's email direct is john_ribeiro@idg.com