In documents filed with the court on Tuesday, Samsung has requested Judgment as a Matter of Law and/or a new trial in the Apple v. Samsung case that recently made headlines for the jury’s award of $1.05 billion to Apple for patent infringement.

The motion papers assert that the jury’s foreman, Velvin Hogan, has given at least a dozen public interviews since the trial concluded (including an interview with the tech website The Verge), and that during those interviews he misstated the law as it regards patent infringement. Specifically, Mr. Hogan stated that “he told his fellow jurors an accused device infringes a design patent based on ‘look and feel’…that an accused device infringes a patent unless it is ‘entirely different’…that a prior art reference could not be invalidating unless that reference was ‘interchangeable.'” (Motion, p. 14, ln. 15–18.) Samsung argues that “[t]hese incorrect and extraneous legal standards had no place in the jury room.” (Motion, p. 14, ln. 19–20.) A longer analysis of this filing can be found on Groklaw.

Samsung also draws attention to the fact that Mr. Hogan was sued by one of his former employers—Seagate, which is partially-owned by Samsung. This information was not disclosed by Mr. Hogan during voir dire. Mr. Hogan claims that the court’s instructions only required him to disclose litigation with which he had been involved in the past 10 years, and that the Seagate lawsuit occurred in 1993. It’s not entirely clear what the court or the parties asked regarding prior litigation, but having been sued by an entity partly owned by one of the parties to the case on which he was a juror seems like it would be relevant to whether Mr. Hogan could be fair and impartial, which is traditionally a question for potential jurors.

Mr. Hogan has questioned whether Samsung’s attorneys let him be on the jury simply so they would have an excuse to request a new trial if the result was less than optimal.

(photo: Shutterstock: 99280415)