September 25, 2012, 1:42 AM — Samsung has filed for judgment as a matter of law and a new trial as an alternative, and questioned jury decisions in a number of areas in its patent dispute against Apple.
A jury in California decided in August that the South Korean company must pay Apple US$1.05 billion for infringing several of its patents in Samsung smartphones and tablets. Apple filed last week for additional damages of US$707 million.
In its filing on Friday, Samsung said that the court's constraints on trial time, witnesses, and exhibits prevented Samsung from presenting "a full and fair case" in response to Apple's claims.
Samsung has also claimed it was treated "unequally" in a number of ways, as for example Apple's lay and expert witnesses were allowed to testify "we were ripped off" and "Samsung copied", while Samsung's witnesses were not even allowed to show the difference between its products and Apple's products and between its own products, according to the redacted filing before the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California, San Jose Division.
Samsung was required to lay foundation for any Apple document, while Apple was not, and Apple was permitted to play advertisements, but Samsung was not. Apple also had free rein to cross-examine Samsung's experts based on their depositions, but Samsung did not, according to the filing.
In the filing Samsung has asked under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50 and 59 for judgment as a matter of law and alternately for a new trial or remittitur as to "each and every claim and issue on which Apple prevailed before the jury."
The filing also questions the jury decision on a number of issues. The court it said, for example, should enter judgment on Apple's design patents, because "no rational jury could find those patents valid." No reasonable jury, applying correct standards, could likewise find Apple's utility patents valid, it added.
From the cases cited for the redacted portions of the filing, it appears that it deals with jury misconduct, according to a post on Groklaw. An exhibit on the jury selection process also suggests that Samsung may be claiming jury misconduct in the redacted section, according to the legal news resource.
In a separate filing, Samsung brought before the court an administrative motion for an order to seal certain documents including the motion for a judgment as matter of law, new trial and/or remittitur, and an order "prohibiting the parties from any further communication with jurors who served during the trial until the matters raised by this motion have been finally resolved."