Court “Dislikes” Lawyers’ Use of Social Media to Evaluate Venire

Mar 31, 2016

Reading Time : 1 min

The court discussed three reasons to restrict, if not forbid, Internet searches about the venire by counsel, their jury consultants, investigators and clients. First, the court discussed the potential danger that jurors, upon learning of counsel’s own searches directed at them, would choose to conduct their own Internet searches about the lawyers or about the case, in violation of the court’s instructions. This danger is even more acute in high-profile lawsuits, like the one at issue here, which create enormous amounts of online commentary, not all of which is accurate. The second potential danger is that Internet searches could facilitate personal appeals to particular jurors based on information gleaned about an individual’s preferences. The court explained that, while jury arguments may employ analogies and quotations, “It would be out of bounds to play up to a juror through such a calculated personal appeal.” The third reason is to protect the privacy of the venire, which, as the court explained, is “not a fantasy team composed by consultants, but good citizens commuting from all over the district, willing to serve our country, and willing to bear the burden of deciding a commercial dispute the parties themselves cannot resolve.”

Rather than issuing an outright ban, the court requested that both parties voluntarily consent to a ban against Internet research on the venire or jury. In the absence of a complete agreement by the parties, the court instructed that certain procedures would be used. Specifically, at the outset of jury instruction, each side will inform the venire of the specific extent to which they will use Internet searches to investigate and monitor jurors both before and during the trial. At that point, the venire will be given opportunity to modify their privacy settings, if they wish. As the trial proceeds, each side must preserve an exact record of every search and all information viewed, and must immediately report any apparent misconduct by a juror. Finally, no personal appeals to particular jurors may be made at any time during the trial.

Oracle America, Inc. v. Google Inc., 3­10­cv­03561 (N.D. Cal. March 25, 2016) (Alsup, J.).

Share This Insight

Previous Entries

IP Newsflash

October 1, 2025

In a recent final written decision, the PTAB determined that a reference patent was not prior art, despite the petitioner’s post‑filing attempt to correct its petition. While the petitioner argued that it intended to rely on the patent application’s earlier date of publication, both the corrected petition and the expert declaration continued to reference the issued patent rather than the published application.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 30, 2025

The USPTO Director recently granted a petitioner’s request for rehearing of the decision discretionarily denying institution of inter partes review, ultimately vacating the original decision, and referring the petition to the board for an institution decision.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 25, 2025

In considering claims to a method of reducing cardiovascular events, the Federal Circuit held that the term a “clinically proven effective” amount did not render the claims patentable over the prior art. Specifically, the Federal Circuit held that the “clinically proven effective” amount, whether limiting or not, could not be used to distinguish the prior art because the claims also specified the exact amount of the drugs to be administered in the method. The Federal Circuit also rejected patentee’s evidence of unexpected results because that evidence was tied solely to the “clinically proven effective” limitation.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 24, 2025

The Federal Circuit reversed a district court’s denial of judgment as a matter of law on non-infringement, thereby setting aside a $106 million jury verdict, after holding that prosecution history estoppel barred the patentee from asserting infringement under the doctrine of equivalents.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 17, 2025

A magistrate judge in the District of Delaware issued a Report and Recommendation, that found the sole asserted claim was a “single means” claim and therefore invalid for lack of enablement. In reaching that conclusion, the magistrate judge rejected the patentee’s argument that the preamble of the claim disclosed a second element that satisfied the combination requirement of Section 112, paragraph 6 because the preamble simply recited a descriptor of the very apparatus that was the subject of the means-plus-function limitation in the body of the claim. The district court judge presiding over this case has scheduled a hearing to review the magistrate’s ruling.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

September 9, 2025

The Federal Circuit has affirmed the PTAB’s determination that a patent challenger did not show the challenged claims were unpatentable for obviousness. The Federal Circuit concluded that substantial evidence, which included expert testimony, showed there was no motivation to combine the references.

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

In a recent order addressing four IPR proceedings, the PTAB exercised its inherent authority under 37 C.F.R. § 42.5(a) to sua sponte authorize post-hearing discovery on a potentially dispositive privity issue. The order followed a Director review decision that vacated and remanded earlier IPRs involving the same parties, patent family, and privity issue. 

...

Read More

IP Newsflash

August 29, 2025

The Patent Trial and Appeal Board denied institution of an inter partes review petition in part because it determined that a patent reference was not prior art under the common ownership exception of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. § 103(c)(1).

...

Read More

© 2025 Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP. All rights reserved. Attorney advertising. This document is distributed for informational use only; it does not constitute legal advice and should not be used as such. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome. Akin is the practicing name of Akin Gump LLP, a New York limited liability partnership authorized and regulated by the Solicitors Regulation Authority under number 267321. A list of the partners is available for inspection at Eighth Floor, Ten Bishops Square, London E1 6EG. For more information about Akin Gump LLP, Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP and other associated entities under which the Akin Gump network operates worldwide, please see our Legal Notices page.