Obviously, he's not biased
I admit that I haven't
read the whole argument by Samsung
(I haven't the time), but I don't see a
argument of
biasness.
The foreman was told, and agreed, not to judge on
points
of law except what the Judge told them about. He didn't do
that. He
used his own experiences to sway the jury, not
what he was told to
do:
THE COURT: OKAY. ALL RIGHT. ANYTHING FROM THAT EXPERIENCE
--
BASICALLY YOU OBVIOUSLY WILL BRING YOUR LIFE EXPERIENCE
TO YOUR ROLE AS A
JUROR, BUT WOULD YOU BE ABLE TO SET THAT
ASIDE, YOUR PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH
PATENTS, AND DECIDE
THIS CASE BASED SOLELY ON THE LAW AS YOU'RE INSTRUCTED AND
THE EVIDENCE THAT'S ADMITTED DURING THE TRIAL?
That is not what the
rule of law requires, and therefore
due processes was not followed. That makes
the verdict what
I believe we we call "unsafe" here in the UK, and
justification to set aside the verdict and have a
retrial.
No, he didn't act as an expert
witness
Didn't he? That is exactly what he did by using his
own
personal knowledge of his "PREVIOUS EXPERIENCE WITH
PATENTS."
Even if he did, Samsung's cited cases don't show
there is any remedy.
Samsung are asking for a retrial, or some
other remedy,
under Rule 50 and 59.
But IANAL, so maybe you've seen
something that I've
missed. [ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|