not to be splitting hairs….but……..
Leader sued Facebook on Nov. 19, 2008 for willful patent infringement, damages and injunction ("Leader v. Facebook"). A jury trial was held from Jul. 19-28, 2010 resulting in a split verdict.[003] Leader proved that Facebook infringes Leader’s patent on 11 of 11 claims and that there was no prior art. Facebook prevailed on an "on-sale bar" claim—a claim not asserted until Jun. 24, 2010, three weeks before trial.[004] Leader appealed the on-sale bar verdict to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit on May 04, 2011,[005] then, when the appeals court failed to apply its own well-settled Pfaff and Group One legal tests, Leader petitioned the U.S. Supreme Court on Nov. 16, 2012, but was denied a hearing on Jan. 7, 2013.[006]
Both the Federal Circuit appeal and the U.S. Supreme Court petition were ruled in Facebook’s favor, despite the courts:
(a) Knowledge of egregious denial of due process to Leader,[007]
(b) Multiple notices of the emergence of 28 previously concealed Zuckerberg computer hard drives and Harvard emails; Facebook’s attorney Gibson Dunn LLP[008] (who concealed them) was representing Facebook in the case;[009]
William Danoff, Fidelity Contrafund, FCNTX
William Danoff, Fidelity Contrafund (Ticker Symbol: FCNTX)
(c) Substantial financial conflicts of interest by the judges and government officials[010] involved in this case, e.g., holdings in Fidelity[011] Contrafund,[840] Vanguard[013] and T. Rowe Price[014]—who are among the largest and notorious pre-IPO mutual fund investors in Facebook, and
(d) Substantial relationship conflicts of interest among the judges with Gibson Dunn LLP, various other Facebook attorneys, including Cooley Godward LLP,[015] Facebook investors, Leader potential witnesses, the Patent Office and other U.S. government officials and advisers