THE DYNAMICS OF
JUROR SELECTION IN
PATENT LITIGATION
HOUSTON INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY INN OF COURT
Pupillage Groups 3 & 4
March 28, 2013
Houston Intellectual Property Inn of Court
PROGRAM OVERVIEW:
• Each table/pupillage group is designated to represent
either the plaintiff or the defendant.
• Each table/pupillage group will select a jury.
• Case selected is Apple v. Samsung.
• Jury panel consists of 12 members of PG 3 and 4
assuming the personas of actual jury panel members
from the Apple v. Samsung case.
• Voir dire questioning and panel member responses are
taken from the actual transcript of Apple v. Samsung.
Houston Intellectual Property Inn of Court
THE JURY SELECTION PROCESS:
• Overview of issues in the Apple v. Samsung case
• General comments on the jury selection process from
 Judge Rosenthal
and
 Jury consultants: Dan Jacks and Samantha Holmes of
EDGE Litigation Consulting
• Voir dire of jury panel members
• Each table/pupillage group selects a jury of 6 from
the panel of 12 (3 strikes per table)
Houston Intellectual Property Inn of Court
THE COMPETITION:
• Actual case with a large plaintiff’s verdict
• A number of the 12 panel members actually served
on the Apple v. Samsung jury
• Exercise compresses and simulates the actual jury
selection process
• Time Pressure / Interactive / Competitive
• Each table’s selections will be tabulated and evaluated –
there are correct answers for the plaintiff and defendant
Houston Intellectual Property Inn of Court
MATERIAL AVAILABLE AT EACH TABLE:
• Overview of the Apple v. Samsung litigation and the
issues presented (PowerPoint slides) (4 per table)
• Juror questionnaires for each of the 12 panel members
(2 per table)
• Jury panel information and notes summary chart for all
12 jury panel members (10 per table)
• Jury panel selection chart for each table to record your
strikes (to be handed out during the selection process)
(1 per table)
The Case: Apple v. Samsung
The Case: Apple v. Samsung
JURY VERDICT FORM
•
APPLE PATENTS (4 design, 3 utility / 28 accused products) –
infringement; inducement; willfulness; invalidity; damages
D 593,087
D 604,305
D 618,677
7,469,381
7,844,915
7,864,163
DESIGN CLAIM
electronic device
DESIGN CLAIM
graphical user
interface …
DESIGN CLAIM
electronic device
CLAIM 19
CLAIM 8
CLAIM 50
•
APPLE TRADE DRESS (registered, unregistered / 20 accused products)
protectability; fame/dilution; willfulness
•
SAMSUNG PATENTS (5 utility / 5 accused products)
infringement; willfulness; invalidity; damages; exhaustion; b/k; antitrust
The Case: Apple v. Samsung
JURY FINDINGS / VERDICT
• Patent infringement; trade dress dilution; willful
• $1.049 billion damages award based on 23 products
• Developments continue …
On March 1, 2013, Court struck $450 million and ordered
new trial on damages for 14 products for which jury used
infringer's profits as remedy for utility patent infringement
THE DYNAMICS OF
JUROR SELECTION IN
PATENT LITIGATION
HOUSTON INTELLECTUAL
PROPERTY INN OF COURT
Pupillage Groups 3 & 4
March 28, 2013
Houston Intellectual Property Inn of Court
INSTRUCTIONS FOR JURY SELECTION:
• Select an “Associate” member as “Table Representative”
• You have less than 15 minutes to complete the selection
process (same time as in Court)
• Participation by all members of each PG is encouraged
• Use the panel selection chart to indicate the 3 jurors you
think should be stricken
• Hand the completed form to Richard Stanley for
processing