Federal Judiciary

The Prior Art talks to i4i v. Microsoft jurors

By Michael C. Smith

Joe Mullin with IP Law & Business has a great article discussing the recent i4i v. Microsoft case with some of the jurors.  The upshot is that in the jurors' mind the case wasn't even close - after they heard the facts they were convinced Microsoft was infringing i4i's patent, and weren't complimentary of the way Microsoft put on its case (juicy details in Joe's article).  (They understandably didn't mention its failure to make a FRCP 50(a) motion, which is what the Federal Circuit would later focus on, as I've previously posted).

The point that I hope comes across in the article was something that I saw this week in our trial in Marshall and that is that if you weren't in the courtroom, as the jury or judge is, in my opinion you simply can't judge what the jurors did in a particular case (with the possible exception of appellate judges, who have the full record and adversarial briefing to inform them of what happened in a particular case).  Joe writes that once the trial ended, one of the jurors went online and read what others were saying about the case  ?They talked about stupid people in Texas, ignorant people in Texas, on a lot of the blogs,? the juror said.  "They talked about how patent companies were coming to Texas because there were dumb people on the juries.?  But those people didn't hear the testimony in the case, she emphasized.  "If you sat through that trial at all, you would know, it was just so clear cut. They weren't there. They didn't know. If they had heard what I heard, they could not have come up with any other verdict.?

I think that point is worth emphasizing, because as anyone who watches jurors - as we did this week - knows (as opposed to those who opine about a trial they didn't attend, a jury they never saw, and a case they know only by reading a press clipping) jurors work awfully hard to understand the facts and to follow the law, and while I don't always agree with them (usually when I lose), I've never yet seen a jury who wasn't trying its dead-level best to do its job, and whose decision I couldn't understand based on the facts I watched presented to them.

Full post as published by Eastern District of Texas Federal Court Practice on January 13, 2010 (boomark / email).