Originally Posted by murraypaul
I don't think there would have been a jury in a patent case [in the UK], it is certainly common for there to be judge-only cases. They are such complicated issues that they seem frankly unsuited for a jury trial.
For patent/technical cases I agree a jury is ill suited to the task. A panel of experts would be better, although there's likely a can of worms involved in the selection of such a panel
I was thinking more general though and not just about patent cases. If a jury reaches a verdict based on flawed reasoning, in the US system it may come out, in our system it's likely that it wouldn't. In our system we're relying heavily on the jury understanding (and knowing whether they've understood) the judges instructions on what they should be deliberating on and what they shouldn't include in their decision making process.
Are there any recordings or transcripts made of the deliberations? If not, I wonder if it'd be a good idea to do so and to provide those transcripts to the judge (perhaps anonymised) so they can verify their instructions have been followed. Or to the appeals judge? Although, I've probably overlooked something and that there's sound reasons for why no transcripts/recordings are made (assuming they aren't')
We place a lot of trust in whether the jury has understood their instructions correctly. In most trials, it may be that it's hard not to understand them, but in technical cases, what seems logical to a non-technical person could be completely incorrect.