A transcript doesn't show everything that's germane to this debate. There's also the issue of timing, as in the flow of the conversation; the cadence of the "back and forth".
It's one thing if the judge asks a question, he gives his first answer, and then she immediately moves onto the next juror. In that case, he would have to interrupt a judge sitting on the bench while she's talking. I can understand him keeping quiet; I don't think I'd have the balls to interrupt a judge in court.
It's a whole other thing if, after he describes his first lawsuit, he pauses (and pauses) without saying anything, inviting the judge to think he was done talking. It's hard to make the "he answered what was asked of him" argument when everyone is sitting there waiting for him to keep talking. In that case, you have to conclude that he has made a conscious decision to withhold the details about his Seagate lawsuit.
Unfortunately this is something that, without a video or audio feed, just can't be settled.