“Methodical, meticulous and fair”
Samsung’s own internal documents were among the most convincing evidence in the case Hogan said. The documents included an email among as many as 40 Samsung executives recounting a warning from Google the Samsung Galaxy Tab too closely resembled Apple's iPad.
“The test we had to give was did they have sufficient time and should they have known they were going to infringe. The evidence stacked up one item after another,” Hogan said.
Some observers were surprised how quickly the jury was able to finish its work which included filling out a verdict form
with 33 multipart questions. The jury’s process was methodical and fair, Hogan insisted.
At one point, “we picked one juror to chose each [accused] product, turning it on close to his chest in a darkened jury room and not telling us which one it was. He turned one [device] around quickly and then another and then both--it absolutely made it clear” whether the devices infringed or not, he said.
In another part of the case
, the jury was asked to determine if Samsung willfully failed to disclose information about its own 3G patents-in-progress while it was part of an ETSI working group defining the 3G standard. Hogan drew on his experience when he worked for Seagate and sat on an ANSI committee setting standards for how to test disk drive components.
“Samsung was under no obligation [to disclose] because there was no patent issued at that time. If a patent has not been issued the IP does not have to be disclosed,” he said.
Hogan was the most technical person on the jury that also included a mechanical engineer from a telecom company and an AT&T project engineer.
“When we got into the jury room to start deliberations, the first thing we did was a round robin, telling each other a little more about our backgrounds and asking each other questions. Then we took a vote to see who would become foreman,” he said.
“The only thing preventing it being a unanimous decision [for me] was one dissenting vote--I voted for the project engineer,” he said.
When it came to determining damages the three technical members of the jury led the group to a decision based on their experiences with licensing rates. Apple asked for $2.7 billion which included 35.5 percent of Samsung’s revenues on its infringing phones, an amount it said represented its profits.
“In our experience the real norm was half of what Apple claimed—between 13 and 15 percent. So we chose 14 percent to be the magic number,” he said.
“When it came time to do the [damages] calculations we had four people in the room with calculators. I looked over the shoulder of everyone working on calculators. We read all the numbers twice and double checked the figures again,” he recalled.
“The only errors
were two points of inconsistency which translated into four items about two tablets. There were a number of entries [on each table in the verdict form], and it was easy to transcribe wrongly,” he said.
“We felt we were methodical, meticulous and fair,” he added.