Judge T.S. Ellis III holds a mountain of Facebook interests; Fenwick & West LLP compromised Van der Meer by representing both sides
Canon 2 of the Code of Conduct for U.S. Judges tells them to "avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety." Here we see both. Is that Lady Justice over Judge Ellis' shoulder breaking her scales in frustration?
Ellis and Rader are close associates of Professor James P. Chandler III (along with the USPTO's David J. Kappos, IBM, Microsoft, Boston Scientific and Fenwick), Leader Technologies' former patent counsel.
(Jun. 13, 2014)—ABC News reports: “Facebook infringed on patents held by a Dutch computer programmer who tried to launch a similar site called ‘Surfbook’ more than a decade ago, according to a lawsuit heard by a federal jury Wednesday.” Click here for the ABC News coverage.
ABC had earlier reported when this case was filed. See “Facebook Sued Over The “Like” Button, ABC News, on Feb. 13, 2013.
Rembrandt Social Media, LP v. Facebook, Inc. et al, 1:2013-cv-00158-TSE, filed Feb. 4, 2013.
Corruption #1: Judge T.S. Ellis III holds large amounts of stock in Facebook interests, including:
- Goldman Sachs, Facebook underwriter
- Morgan Stanley, Facebook underwriter
- T.Rowe Price, holder of 5.2% of Facebook’s insiders shares at the IPO
- BlackRock, a top 10 Facebook IPO mutual fund winner
Bottom line: Judge Ellis had a duty to recuse himself, and did not.
Curiously, Judge Ellis was a faculty member in Professor James P. Chandler, III’s National Intellectual Property Law Institute (“NIPLI”). Professor Chandler was Leader Technologies’ patent attorney who introduced Leader to Fenwick & West LLP. Suspicion is growing that Chandler and Fenwick played on both sides of the ball in the Leader v. Facebook... and Rembrandt v Facebook.
Also reminiscent of Leader v. Facebook, Judge Ellis blocked one of Rembrandt’s damages expert witnesses from giving testimony at trial. In the Leader case, Judge Leonard P. Stark allowed Facebook to add the on-sale bar claim just one month before trial and prevented Leader from performing discovery, and simultaneously blocked Leader from getting expert testimony from Chandler. The Chandler testimony was blocked even though Chandler is a recognized expert on intellectual property law and had personal knowledge of the events that Facebook would raise. A Delaware U.S. Attorney's Office official told AFI investigators recently that Chandler and Stark worked together when Stark was an Assistant U.S. Attorney.
Corruption #2: Fenwick & West LLP began officially representing Facebook in about 2006 in securities and patent matters. However, Fenwick was the attorney who filed the patent for Van der Meer back in 1998. Sound familiar? Fenwick represents one inventor whose patent magically emerges inside Facebook’s portfolio, repackaged as a Facebook patent. Ellis ignored the obvious duplicity and attorney misconduct, probably since Fenwick was Chandler's compatriot in what appears now to have been an organized effort to kill all "cloud" patents not controlled by the Cartel, led by Fenwick.
Did Fenwick seek a conflicts waiver from Van der Meer before representing Facebook?
Is Facebook using Fenwick’s knowledge of the Van der Meer representation against Van der Meer? Is the Pope Catholic?
Is Rembrandt v. Facebook another corrupt court like Leader v. Facebook ?
Given Judge Ellis’ bias toward Facebook, can the Van der Meer family and Rembrandt hope for justice?
Or, will this be yet another kangaroo court masquerading as American justice?
Pass this post around and make sure people in Washington D.C. get educated on the profound conflicts of interest in this case. It appears that our justice system, attorneys and judges alike, are totally ignoring their duties to ensure to the American public that justice is blind.
* * *v