Judge Leonard P. Stark, U.S. District Court of Delaware, trial judge in Leader Techs, Inc. v. Facebook, Inc., 770 F. Supp. 2d 686 (D.Del. 2011). Judge Stark heard his jury foreman admit that the jury made the on-sale bar decision without any evidence other than speculation, and yet he supported that verdict anyway. Just months before trial, Judge Stark allowed Facebook to add the on-sale bar claim after the close of all fact discovery and blocked Leader from preparing its defenses to this new claim. Judge Stark allowed the claims despite Leader's prophetic argument that the action would confuse the jury and prejudice Leader. He also permitted the jury to ignore the Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. ( test for on-sale bar, even after instructing the jury to use it. See that Jury Instruction No. 4.7 here .) He also contradicted his own instruction to Leader to answer Interrogatory No. 9 in the present tense (2009), then permitted the jury to interpret it as a 2002 admission as well. Facebook's entire on-sale bar case is based upon this interrogatory. (Editorial : Hardly sufficient to meet the "heavy burden" of the clear and convincing evidence standard.)

Judge Alan D. Lourie, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, panel judge in Leader Techs v. Facebook, Inc., 678 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Judge Lourie stood to benefit financially from undisclosed holdings in Facebook. See analysis of Judge Lourie's T. Rowe Price holdings re. the Facebook IPO. Judge Lourie also failed to apply his own law-test in Group One v. Hallmark Cards to the evidence. After debunking all of Facebook's evidence on appeal, Judge Lourie created new argument in the secrecy of chambers to support Facebook and prevent the on-sale bar verdict from being overturned—a clear breach of constitutional due process.

Judge Kimberly A. Moore, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, panel judge in Leader Techs v. Facebook, Inc., 678 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Judge Moore stood to benefit financially from undisclosed holdings in Facebook. See disclosure of substantial holdings in Facebook and Facebook-related stocks. Judge Moore failed to follow the long-held precedent for testing on-sale bar evidence in Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc.—an evident and intentional omission coming from a former patent law professor. After debunking all of Facebook's evidence on appeal, Judge Moore created new argument in the secrecy of chambers to support Facebook and prevent the on-sale bar verdict from being overturned—a clear breach of constitutional due process.

Judge Evan J. Wallach, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, member of the three-judge panel in Leader Techs v. Facebook, Inc. , 678 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Judge Wallach is not a patent attorney. This begs the question as to why a judge with no knowledge of patent law was assigned to the case. Would anyone ask a dentist to perform brain surgery? The Federal Circuit was specially formed to appoint patent-knowledgeable judges to patent cases. There is no evidence so far in the judicial disclosures that Judge Wallach holds stock in Facebook, although when he was asked on a motion to disclose potential Facebook holdings and other conflicts of interest, he refused along with the other judges. See Motion to Disclose Conflicts of Interest. Judge Wallach continued in silence even after Clerk of Court Horbaly failed to provide him with Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam’s motions (according to his Federal Circuit staffer Valeri White), and yet the Clerk signed an order regarding that motion on Judge Wallach’s behalf. See a full analysis of these events at Donna Kline Now! Judge Wallach also failed to police his court’s violation of Leader’s Fifth and 14th Amendment constitutional right to due process when he participated in the fabrication of new arguments and evidence for Facebook in the secrecy of judge's chambers after he had just invalidated Facebook’s sole remaining item of evidence (using disbelieved testimony as ostensible evidence of an opposite). Judge Wallach also failed to police his court when he failed to apply the Supreme Court's Pfaff v. Wells Electronics, Inc. test for on-sale bar evidence, which included even the Federal Circuit’s own Group One v. Hallmark Cards, Inc. test—a test which Judge Lourie should have advised Judge Wallach to follow since Judge Lourie helped write that opinion. Group One test omission analysis.

Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly, U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit, clerk who signed all the opinions in Leader Techs v. Facebook, Inc., 678 F.3d 1300 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Clerk Horbaly and his staff obfuscated when the court's ruling was challenged by an amicus curiae brief revealing clear mistakes of law and new evidence. See analysis of the misconduct and misrepresentations within the Federal Circuit Clerk of Court in Leader v. Facebook. Mr. Horbaly failed to disclose his conflicts of interest and close associations with numerous Facebook attorneys and law firms, as well as his close association with one of Facebook's largest shareholders, Microsoft, who is a Director of The Federal Circuit Bar Association where Mr. Horbaly is an ex officio officer. Additionally, the DC Bar revealed in a written statement that Clerk Horbaly is not licensed to practice law in the District of Columbia. [Editorial: What does that make the Federal Circuit with its location within in a stone's throw of the White House? A self-governing state?]