The judge who gave the first opinion for the appeals court (as you can see at the start of the published decision) was The Rt. Hon. Professor Sir Robin Jacob. As Wikipedia explains, he "retired from the Court of Appeal in March 2011" to become a professor, but under Section 9 of the Senior Courts Act 1981, ex-judges can still be invited to sit on the bench. On that basis, Sir Robin Jacob handled the Samsung v. Apple case that made headline news around the world because it appeared that Apple filed frivolous lawsuits (which is not true). In a ruling on Apple's first attempt to comply with the publicity order, Sir Robin Jacob even noted a "lack of integrity".
FOSSPatents notes that for someone so concerned with "integrity" is it very strange that after issuing an extreme ruling in favor of Samsung that the judge would then go work for them. "It gives the impression that a judge who deals Samsung's number one rival a huge PR blow, in a way that I found very extreme and unjustified, will be generously rewarded."
What do you think? Was it reasonable that Apple was forced to make a public apology to Samsung after trying to protect its IP in court? Should that judge be then allowed to work as patent expert for Samsung?