> That is not the grounds on which the patent attorney was excused
> The key worry is that the patent attorney may bring up his knowledge in deliberations with other jurors.
That's exactly why the patent attorney was excused. A juror is not supposed to bring his view of the law into deliberations. The jury is supposed to get its view of the law from the judge.
> As for the Android users...Android users are not as enamored with Google as iPhone users are with Apple, so that consideration would be laughed out of court.
Who knows what the relative brand-loyalty of Android versus Apple users is. The point is that it is entirely legitimate to remove a juror that might have reason to root for one side over the other.
That's not how jury selection actually works in this country. Personal experience in a relevant field is generally not a justification for removing a juror for cause. A product preference is not a justification for removing a juror for cause.
You can of course use one of your peremptory challenges (i.e, no justification required) on such jurors, but you only get a handful of those (1-6, depending on the jurisdiction).
That's exactly why the patent attorney was excused. A juror is not supposed to bring his view of the law into deliberations. The jury is supposed to get its view of the law from the judge.
> As for the Android users...Android users are not as enamored with Google as iPhone users are with Apple, so that consideration would be laughed out of court.
Who knows what the relative brand-loyalty of Android versus Apple users is. The point is that it is entirely legitimate to remove a juror that might have reason to root for one side over the other.