|Instructions to Jury||What the foreman did|
|“In reaching your verdict, you may consider only the testimony and exhibits that were received into evidence. Certain things are not evidence, and you may not consider them in deciding what the facts are. I will list them for you:”||The foreman brought forward his personal experience of patents without opportunity for Samsung to cross-examine him: “I took that story back to the jury. Laid it out for ’em. They understood the points I was talking about.”|
|“(4) Anything you may have seen or heard when the court was not in session is not evidence. You are to decide the case solely on the evidence received at the trial.”||The foreman planned his defence of Apple outside the court and planned to take sides: “I could defend this if it was my patent…”|
|“For each partyâ€™s patent infringement claims against the other, the first issue you will have to decide is whether the alleged infringer has infringed the claims of the patent holderâ€™s patents and whether those patents are valid.
A utility patent claim is invalid if the claimed invention is not new. For the claim to be invalid because it is not new, all of its requirements must have existed in a single device or method that predates the claimed invention, or must have been described in a single previous publication or patent that predates the claimed invention. In patent law, these previous devices, methods, publications or patents are called â€œprior art references.”
|The foreman ignored the judge’s instruction by inventing a new rule for invalidation by processor, something that makes no sense since both Apple and Samsung used ARM processors: “…whether or not the prior art really did invalidate that patent and so with the moment I had I realized the software on the Apple side could not be placed into the processor on the prior art and vice-versa, and that changed everything”|
|“If you decide that any infringement was willful, that decision should not affect any damage award you give. I will take willfulness into account later.”||“We wanted to make sure the message we sent was not just a slap on the rist. We wanted to make sure it was sufficiently high to be painful.”|
The more I reflect on the jury’s findings in Apple v Samsung, the more appalled I am that the judge does not recall the court in emergency session to set aside their findings. To let such faulty reasoning to stand until weeks later is a travesty of justice.