|
Authored by: Anonymous on Friday, December 07 2012 @ 10:07 PM EST |
What about internal-external evidence, such as Hogan's advising the other jurors
that, by his own personal experience and knowledge, prior art is invalid unless
it runs on both the previous mechanism and the current one at trial? And as for
sacrosanct, when revelations after trial that a bible was used as reference in a
jury deliberation, judge's have gone ballistic. I agree with Samsung that, at
the very least, if any of the jurors depended on Hogan's alleged beyond casual
knowledge of patent subject matter in making their individual decisions, it
should have the opportunity as it did with other expert witnesses in the case,
to examine the extent of Hogan's "expertise", under oath, that he
proffered the other jurors in the jury room.[ Reply to This | Parent | # ]
|
|
|
|
|