Samsung wants a new patent trial with Apple in the US, claiming the jury couldn't and shouldn't have come to its $1.05bn verdict for its iPhone-maker rival.

The South Korean firm's filing with the court is partially redacted, but the section that's been blacked out is likely to claim jury misconduct, as previous cases cited to back it up are ones where jury misconduct prompted a new trial.

In the cited cases, the jury misconduct comes in various forms – such as they were biased going into the courtroom among other reasons.

The filing also says that Samsung's arguments are likely to "subject all of the jurors to extra-judicial scrutiny and public criticism which they may find unwelcome and intrusive", another hint that misconduct is lurking under the blacked-out pages.

The Apple v Samsung case was so widely reported that there's plenty of scope for Samsung to argue that the jurors were biased or that they brought information from media reports into their deliberations that they didn't get from the trial itself.

There's also the outspoken foreman of the jury and patent-holder Velvin Hogan, whose statements since the trial appear to suggest that he used his own patent experiences to help the other jurors.

Samsung attached a portion of the jury selection process in which Hogan promises he can set aside his own understanding of patents and only use the judge's interpretation of the law and her instructions. But after the trial, Hogan and other jurors who gave interviews said that his experience helped them come to their decision. Juror Manuel Ilagan told CNET that Hogan used his patent expertise:

"He owned patents himself...so he took us through his experience. After that it was easier," he said.

Meanwhile, Hogan himself told Bloomberg TV the same thing.

"Some were not sure of how prior art could either render a patent acceptable or whether it could invalidate it... (I) laid it out for them," he said.

Aside from claims of misconduct, the unredacted portion of Samsung's filing argues that "no reasonable jury" could have come to the verdict it did based on the evidence presented and that neither side had enough time to put forward a full case.

Much was made of Judge Lucy Koh's time allotments on both sides, which each received 25 hours each of trial time including time allotted for cross-examining the other side's witnesses. Both Apple and Samsung did their best to try to sneak in extra stuff, but Koh held them to the timetable.

Samsung also pointed out problems in the quickly reached verdict, including what it saw as an unclear process by which the court ascertained the damages figure, as well as inconsistent findings.

"A new trial is also necessary due to inconsistencies in the jury's verdict on the '915 patent. The jury found that the Ace, Intercept, and Replenish devices do not infringe the '915 patent but the remainder of the accused devices do," the filing explained.

"These verdicts are irreconcilably inconsistent, for the Ace, Intercept and Replenish exhibit the same behaviour as devices found to infringe, including the Droid Charge, Indulge, Epic 4G, Infuse 4G, Transform and Prevail.

"The same Android version found in the non-infringing Ace (Android 2.2.1) and the Intercept and Replenish (Android 2.22) are found in these other devices which the jury found to be infringing." ®