One does feel that the legal expertise afforded Samsung was second tier compared to that of Morrison and Foerster. But the exclusion of significant exculpatory evidence for Samsung was entirely due to the petulance of the judge, in what is not one of the better exhibits of the judicial system at work.
That said, the continued delineation of an increasingly narrower role for juries and the battles over what they can actually hear is a disturbing one -- it essentially devalues what life experience the jurors can actually bring to bear. Given what was actually heard in court, the jury decision is understandable. If a greater context ("inadmissible!") were provided, the outcome would almost certainly have been different. What trust is actually given to ordinary citizens? The evolution of American bourgeois democracy suggests that increasingly, they are expected to give a decision artfully decided by the actors above them, and merely imprint it with their authority.