Hogan says that while for some on the jury it was boring, for him it was exciting, He admits to some confusing on the part of some jurors, but said they came up with a process that resolved what they agreed on quickly, then came back to disputed areas later. Interestingly, Hogan also says he was initially leaning towards Samsung before an "aha!" moment changed everything and removed concerns about prior art. A patent holder himself, he decided he could defend it if it was his patent, and then managed to explain it, and convince his fellow jurors.
Contrary to reports saying the jury didn't read all the jury instructions, Hogan said the judge read every one of them to the jury before closing arguments. Hogan also said the jury kept them open and consulted them continuously while weighing each patent. According to Hogan, the form the judge provided broke things down in such a way that it facilitated a relatively fast deliberation process.
As to a previous statement from Hogan that the jury had tried, inappropriately, to be punitive, Hogan tried to re-contextualize that somewhat as making a point about protecting intellectual property rights in the U.S. A meeting where Google demanded that Samsung make their devices less like Apple-like was compelling to Hogan, as were internal memos where Samsung compared themselves to Apple, and said they needed to move closer to Apple. Hogan said they unnecessarily crossed the line. Nokia, RIM, and Motorola, he said, were examples of phones that might seem Apple-like but aren't.
Hogan said he doesn't own an iPhone and deliberately doesn't own any Apple products as he's "a PC". His wife does have a Samsung feature phone. He also denied Apple had any home-field advantage, and said that the Android operating system itself didn't infringe (which contrasts the jury verdict for the Nexus S phone, which was pure Android, and found to infringe...) Hogan said he wasn't originally sure design patents were reasonable, but that this case helped sway him.
Also, neither he nor the jury, he said, knew the judge could still impose triple damages for areas where Samsung willfully infringed.
So, does listening to Hogan make you think the jury reached a deliberate, proper verdict, or does it raise any red flags?
Source: Bloomberg Television