[JURIST] The US Supreme Court [official website] on Tuesday heard argument [day call, PDF] in the cases of Samsung Electronics Co. v. Apple, Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado and Manrique v. United States [SCOTUSblog backgrounders]. In Samsung Electronics, Samsung Corporation challenged [transcript, PDF] a $400 million verdict [opinion, PDF] in Apple’s favor that held Samsung’s copying of the graphical user interface and front screen of the iPhone infringed design patents held by Apple. The challenge involves interpretation of a portion of the US Code that provides that any person who applies a patented design “to any article of manufacture” is “liable … to the extent of his total profit.” The question is whether “total profit” considers only the income from the infringement, the screen and interface, or all of Samsung’s phone sales.

In Pena-Rodriguez v. Colorado, the court is considering a challenge [transcript, PDF] to a Colorado rule of evidence [Rule 606(b)], known as the “no impeachment rule,” that prevents jurors from testifying after a verdict as to what happened during deliberations. Pena-Rodriguez, a Colorado man of Mexican descent, was found guilty of assaulting two teenage women at a racetrack. After finding Pena-Rodriguez guilty, two jurors came forward and alleged that another juror, a former police officer, had made racially biased statements asserting the defendant’s guilt “because he’s Mexican, and Mexican men take whatever they want.” The question presented is whether the “no impeachment” rule violates the Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of trial by an impartial jury. The Colorado Supreme Court previously affirmed [opinion, PDF] that the juror’s bias falls within the “no impeachment rule.”

The Supreme Court also heard argument in the case of Manrique v. United States, in which a defendant appealed an initial verdict [transcript, PDF] but not a post-hearing award of restitution. The longstanding practice of incorporating restitution into an initial sentencing order, but amending the order with a later-defined amount, was previously upheld [opinion] by the Supreme Court. Now, the Supreme Court is asked to determine whether an appeal of an initial sentencing order is sufficient as an appeal of a restitution order as well. The US Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit ruled [opinion, PDF] that the failure to appeal deprived the appeals court of jurisdiction to hear the issue.