Emily
Chang: Were you ever confused? Were other people ever confused?
Vel
Hogan: I wasn't confused but there was a, a few of the jurors that were
confused so what we did in the jury room before we did anything after we did the
election of who was going to lead the jury I told them let's just lay out on the
table any concerns or open questions you may have that's left over and let's
just get that out of the way first.
Emily Chang: Now when you first got
into the jury room initially, this was Wednesday right?
Vel Hogan:
Yes.
Emily Chang: Was? There are reports that you were initially
divided but did you, did you have a feeling this was going to sway
overwhelmingly in Apple’s favour?
Vel Hogan: No. No. In fact if you'd
have asked me at that moment in time, I thought it was gonna ultimately maybe
lean the other way.
Emily Chang: Why?
Vel Hogan: Why? We were
at a stalemate but some of the jurors weren't sure of the patent prosecution
process. Some weren't sure of how, ah, prior art could either render a patent
accept... ah, acceptable or whether it could invalidate it and so what we did
is we started talking about one and the day was over. When I was at home
thinking about that patent, ah, claim by claim, limit by limit I had what we
would call an ah ha moment.
Emily Chang: Um hmmm.
Vel Hogan:
And I suddenly decided that I could defend this if it was my
patent.
Emily Chang: Really?
Vel Hogan: Really. And with
that, I took that story back to the jury, laid it out for 'em, they understood
the points that I was talking about and then we meticulous, meticulously went
patent by patent claim by claim
against the test that the judge had given us
because each area, each patent had a different ah legal premise to judge on. We
got that all sorted out and decided which ones were valid, which ones weren't
valid.
Emily Chang: So the initial stalemate that you found yourself
in, what was that about?
Vel Hogan: It was about a particular, ah,
patent, ah, the '460 patent, and whether or not the prior art really did
invalidate that pattern, that patent and so with that moment I had, I realized
that the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on
the prior art and vice versa.
Emily Chang: Um hmm.
Vel Hogan:
And that means that they're not interchangeable and that just cha..., that
changed everything right there.
Emily Chang: You know it's all
obviously extremely technical. there has been a lot of talk since this verdict
has come down. How did you guys make this verdict so quickly. There were more
than a hundred pages of jury instructions. There are even reports that you
didn't read all of those instructions.
Vel Hogan: Oh. We read. First
off, before closing arguments was given, the judge read to us the final
instructions, instruction by instruction. Then she allowed the closing
arguments, then she dismissed us. And so we had those closing argue..., those
ah, instructions and we had them open there and then we took patent by patent
and got hung upon the first one but the day was almost over by then and so I
said to the jury, "We're not going to allow ourselves to get hung up. We're
going to, if we find a debate like this, we'll move on. We'll do the simplest
things first.” So then when I came back the next day...