From
`Dr. La.kshmi Arunachalam
`222 Stanford Avenue
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`650.690.0995 5
`laks22002@yahoo.com
`
`September 25, 2017 _
`
`l
`
`Writer’s Direct Dial No.2 650.690.0995
`Writer’s lntemet Address: laks22002@yahoo.com
`
`-
`
`DC SKY
`we-as
`
`Secretary
`Lisa R. Barton,
`The Honorable
`U.S. International Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW - Room 112
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`_____________________________________
`
`
`Officeofthe
`p SPCYETBW
`’"' ’ "8"" @°"""iS$»<>n
`
`Re:
`
`Certain IoT DevicesAnd Components I71ereof(IoT, The Internet of Things — Web.
`Applications Displayed on a Web browser)
`_-
`‘
`D'
`
`Dear Secretary Barton:
`
`Enclosed for filing, please find documents in support of a request byDr. Lakshmi
`Arunachalam (“Complainant”) that the U.S. International Trade Commission institute an
`investigation pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930, as amended, concerning certain
`IoT devices And components thereof (IoT, The Intemet of Things ——Web Applications
`displayed on a Web browser). Complainant’s submission includes the following documents:
`
`' 1.
`
`2.
`
`a.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`One (1)_0riginal and eight (8) paper copies of Compla'inant’s Verified Complaint,
`pursuant to Commission Rule 2l0.8(a)(l)(i).
`
`One (1) electronic copy of the public exhibits to the Verified Complaint pursuant to
`Commission Rules 2l0.8(a)(l)(i) and 2l0.l2(a)(9), including:
`
`one (1) electronic certified copy of United'States Patent No. 7,930,340 (“the ’340
`patent”), copy of which is included as Exhibit 1 to the Verified Complaint
`'
`pursuant to_Commission Rule 2l0.l2(a)(9)(i); and
`
`one (1) electronic copy of the certified assignment records for the ’340 patent,
`copy of whichis included as Exhibit 2 to the Verified Complaint, pursuant to
`Commission Rule 210. 12(a)(9)(ii).
`'
`'
`_
`
`one (1) electronic copy of Declaration by Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam that the
`attached copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,930,340, its assignment records, its­
`prosecution history, and patent and applicable pages of each technical reference
`mentioned in the prosecution history, are true and correct copies of the same and
`
`C 1
`
`is
`
`­
`­
`­
`

`

`that I have ordered from the USPTO to send certified copies of the same to the
`U.S. International Trade Commission.
`
`One (I) electronic copy of the confidential exhibits 1C, 2C, 3C, 4C and 5C to the
`Verified Complaint, pursuant to Commission Rules 201.6(c) and 2l0.8(a)(l)(ii).
`
`.
`
`Thirty (30) additional copies (one (1) additional copy for each of the 30 Proposed
`Respondents) of the Verified Complaint and accompanying electronic copies of the
`public exhibits, for service upon each of the 30 Proposed Respondents, pursuant to
`Commission Rules 201.6(0) and 2l0.8(a)(1)(iii); and thirty~(30)additional copies (one
`(1) additional copy for each of the 30 Proposed Respondents) of electronic copies of
`the confidential exhibits to the Verified Complaint for service upon each of the
`Proposed Respondent’s counsel alter it has subscribed to the protective order.
`
`Four (4) electronic copies each of the certified prosecution history of the ’340 patent,
`which is identified as Appendix A to the Verified Complaint, pursuant to Commission
`Rule 2 lO.l2(c)(1).
`I
`
`Four (4) electronic copies each of each patent and applicable pages of each technical
`reference mentioned in the prosecution history of the ’340 patent, which is identified
`as Appendix B to the Verified Complaint, pursuant to Commission Rule 2l0.l2(c)(2).
`
`Four (4) electronic copies of Declaration by Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam that the
`attached copy of U.S. Patent No. 7,930,340, its assignment records, its prosecution
`history, and patent and applicable pages of each technical reference mentioned in the
`prosecution history, are true and correct copies of the same and that I have ordered
`from the USPTO to send certified copies of the same to the U.S. International Trade
`Commission.
`
`Four (4) electronic copies each of the infringement chart of the ’340 patent for the
`Accused Products, which is identified as Confidential Exhibit 4C and four (4)
`electronic copies each of the Confidential Representative Domestic Industry Claim
`Charts for the ‘340 Patent, which is identified as Confidential Exhibit 5C to the
`Verified Complaint (which is a ditto copy of Exhibit 4C and hence not reproduced)
`and four (4) electronic copies each of Confidential Exhibits 1C, which is the
`Confidential Declaration of Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam regarding Economic Domestic
`Industry, 2C which is the Confidential License Agreement .and 3C, which is the _
`Confidential List of Licensees of U.S. Patent No. 7,930,340.
`
`A letter and certification requesting confidential treatment for the information
`contained in confidential exhibits 1C, 2C, 3C, 4C and 5C to the Verified Complaint,
`pursuant to Commission Rules 20l.6(b) and 2l0.5(d).
`.
`
`A Statement on the Public Interest regarding the remedial orders sought by
`Complainants in the Verified Complaint, pursuant to Commission Rule 210.8(b).
`
`2
`
`.
`
`­
`

`

`ll.
`
`12.
`
`Please
`
`Dated:
`
`Enclosures
`
`Verification of the Complaint; and
`
`'
`
`p
`
`Declaration by Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam that the attached copy of U.S. Patent No.
`7,930,340, its assignment records, its prosecution history, and patent and applicable
`pages of each technical reference mentioned in the prosecution history, are true and
`correct copies of the same and that I have ordered from the USPTO to send certified
`copies of the same to the U.S. International Trade Commission.
`
`contact me With any questions regarding this filing.
`
`9
`
`September 25, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`_
`
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam,
`222 Stanford Ave,
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel: 650.690.0995
`laks22002@yahoo.com
`Pro Se Complainant Dr. LakshmiArunachalam
`
`3
`
`

`

`From
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`222 Stanford Avenue
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`650.690.0995
`laks22002@yahoo.com
`
`p
`
`V
`
`C
`
`V
`Writer’s Direct Dial No.: 650.690.0995
`Writer’s Internet Address: laks22002@yahoo.com
`
`REQUEST FOR CONFIDENTIAL TREATMENT
`
`September 25, 2017
`
`VIA FEDEX
`
`'
`
`The Honorable Lisa R. Barton, Secretary
`U.S. Intemational Trade Commission
`500 E Street, SW - Room 112
`‘
`Washington, DC 20436
`
`Re:
`
`Certain IoT DevicesAnd Components Thereof (IoT, The Internet of Things — Web
`Applications Displayed on a Web browser)
`_
`
`Dear Secretary Barton:
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 201.6, Complainant Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam respectfully
`requests confidential
`treatment of certain confidential business information contained in
`confidential exhibits 1C, 2C, 3C, 4C and SC to the'Verified Complaint.
`'
`
`The information in the exhibits for which Complainant seeks confidential treatment
`consists of proprietary commercial information, including confidential and proprietary licensing
`infonnation,
`technical
`information related to domestic articles protected by Complainant’s
`asserted patent, and financial data regarding Complainant’s domestic investments in plant and
`equipment and labor and capital and patent prosecution and patent litigation related to domestic
`articles protected by Complainant’s asserted patent.
`
`The proprietary information described herein qualifies as confidential business infonnation
`under Commission Rule 201.6 because substantially-identical information is not available to the
`public, because the disclosure of this information would cause substantial competitive harm to
`Complainant, and ’because the disclosure of
`this information would likely impede the
`Commission»’sefforts and ability to obtain similar information in the future.
`'
`
`4
`
`­
`

`

`Thank you for your attention. Please contact me with any questions regarding this request
`for confidential treatment.
`'
`
`Dated: September 25, 2017
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam,
`222 Stanford Ave,
`Menlo Park,’CA 94025
`Tel: 650.690.0995
`4
`laks22002@yahoo.com
`Pro Se Complainant Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`.
`
`Enclosures (Certification)
`
`5
`
`­
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN IOTDEVICES AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF (TOT,THE
`INTERNET 0E THINGS (TOT)_ WEB
`APPLICATIONS DISPLAYED 0N'A
`WEB BROWSER)
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-__
`
`.
`
`CERTIFICATION
`
`I, Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, Pro Se Complainant, declare as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am duly authorized by Complainant to execute this certification.
`
`-
`
`2.
`
`I have reviewed confidential exhibits IC, 2C, 3C, 4C and 5C to Complainant’s
`Verified Complaint, for which Complainant seeks confidential treatment.
`
`3. To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief, founded after a reasonable
`inquiry, substantially-identical information to that contained in the exhibits is not
`available to the public.
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`» Executed this 25*‘day of September, 2017 in Menlo Park, CA.
`
`_
`
`
`
`<=€<>J2.Jt.;..lh\
`
`Dr.‘Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`6
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`._
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN IoT DEVICES AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF (IoT, THE
`INTERNET or THINGS (IOT) - WEB
`APPLICATIONS DISPLAYED ON A
`WEB BROWSER)
`
`Investigation No. 337-TA-__
`
`‘
`
`COMPLAINANT’S INITIAL STATEMENT ON THE PUBLIC INTEREST
`
`Pursuant to Commission Rule 2 l 0.8(b), Pro Se Complainant Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`(“I” or “my”) respectfiilly submits this Statement on the Public Interest regarding the remedial
`
`orders that I seek against each of the Proposed Respondents listed 1. I seek a permanentlimited
`
`exclusion order excluding from entry into the USA certain IoT devices that infringe one or more
`
`of claims l-40, and induce infringement of claims 10-15, 1-9, and 16-40 of U.S. Patent No.
`
`7,930,340 (“the ’340 patent”), either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents; permanent
`
`cease and desist orders prohibiting each Proposed Respondent, its subsidiaries, related companies,
`
`and agents from conducting any of the following activities in the USA: importing, admitting or
`
`withdrawing from a foreign trade zone, marketing, advertising, demonstrating,
`
`testing,
`
`warehousing inventory of, distributing, offering for sale, selling,
`
`licensing, programming,
`
`‘International Business Machines Corporation andqIBMIndia Pvt Ltd (collectively, “IBM”); SAP America, Inc. and
`SAP SE (collectively, “SAP"); Apple Inc. (“Apple”); ]'PMorgan Chase and Company (“JPMorgan”); Facebook, Inc.
`(“Facebook”); Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”); the United States (“United States”); United States Patent and
`Trademark Office (“USPTO”); Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB); Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and
`Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd_ (collectively, “Samsung”); Eclipse Foundation, Inc. and its Members (collectively,
`“The IBM Eclipse Foundation”); Fiserv Inc. and Fiserv India Pvt Ltd (collectively, “Fiserv”); Wells Fargo Bank
`(“Wells Fargo”); Citigroup, Citibank (collectively, “Citi"); Citizen’s Financial Group, Inc. (“Citizen’s”); Fulton
`Financial Corporation (“Fulton”);
`J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc. and J.‘C. Penney Company, Inc.
`(collectively,
`“]CPenney”); U-Haul International, Inc. (“U—Haul”);Avis Rent A Car System, LLC, Avis Budget Group, and Payless
`Car Rental (collectively, “Avis”); Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., The Hertz Corporation, Dollar Rent A Car, and Thrifty
`Car Rental (collectively, “Hertz”); Ace Rent A Car (“Ace”); Enterprise Holdings, Enterprise Rent-A-Car, National
`Car Rental, and Alamo Rent A Car (collectively, “Enterprise Car Rental”); Presidio Bank (“Presidio”); Fremont
`Bancorporation and Fremont Bank (collectively, “Fremont Bank”); Heritage Bank of Commerce, and Focus Bank
`(“Heritage Bank”); and Bridge Bank (“Bridge Bank”); each of whom is a “Proposed Respondent.”
`
`7
`
`

`

`packaging, repackaging, bundling, updating, soliciting U.S. agents or distributors for, or aiding
`
`and abetting other entities in the importation, sale for importation, sale afler importation, transfer,
`
`or distribution of its infringing IoT devices, which are the types of products commonly before the
`
`Commission and have been the subject of past remedial orders.
`
`The Commission has made clear that protecting domestic intellectual property rights
`
`against infringing imports is of paramount importance, and will only be denied in exceptional
`
`circumstances Where the harm to the public interest is severe. There is no such harm here. My
`
`requested remedial orders serve—rather than harm—the public interestz. I am an icon of America
`
`Invents. I invented the Internet of Things (loT) — Web applications displayed on a Web browser,
`
`prior to and non-existent in 1995. I founded three start-ups in USA, and invested a hundred million
`
`dollars in cash, human capital, brainpower and man-years, researching and developing innovations
`
`2 SYNOPSIS: Revolving-Door Government Contract Fraud Inducement and Adjudicative Conuption of the USPTO
`Designed To Anti-Trust Domestic and International Intemet-of-Things (I0T) By the USPTO, Compromised Courts,
`and Legislative Enactment Coloring The Infiingement of [ljhe Single (most important) l995.Patent, by Copyright
`Conversion In Breach of Solemn Oaths and Public Trust Nonfeasance, Misfeasance, and Malfeasance In Corrupt
`Association with Corporate Respondents and Proposed Respondents Converting the Agency into a Continuing RICO
`Enterprise of Repetitious Wrongful Mandated Activity Concealing Crimes too Small to be Recognized as Crime
`Inconsistent with Legitimate Intent.
`_
`I
`(a) To induce Inventors to forfeit inventions to the USPTO, USPTO systematically propounds the ‘Organized
`Dissemination of [Misleading] Infonnation’ regarding the ‘Object’ of its ‘Public Contract-Patent Grant [Offer —
`Contingent upon Agency Certification of the Invention’s ‘Construction & Terms’.]’ guaranteeing; a) Q11, the
`Invention [Acceptance Consideration] will be used to ‘Promoteand Benefit Commerce, the Economy, and Public
`Use. ’; b) Lat,
`the ‘Patented’ Invention’s ‘AgencyCemfiedAC0nstruction and Terms’ will be protected by ‘Judicial
`Notice ’of the attaching ‘Patent Prosecution History Estoppel ’ upon any challenge; c) that, the Inventor will possess
`‘Unfettered Control and Use’ of the patented invention for a ‘Time Certain’; and d) gl1g_t,by ‘Government Grant, ’
`the Inventor will have ‘The Awarded Right’ to collect royalties for any infiingements of the patent’s claims,
`construction and terms during the time certain in which the Inventor has control of the patent. Thereby ‘Creating
`Satisfied Victims for a Period of Time.’ (b) By ‘Voluntary Victim Action in ‘Accepting’the Government’s ‘Ofiiar,’
`the Victim in fact ‘Assistedby Constructive Admission ’that the ‘Revolving-Door Agency’ contracted in ‘GoodFaith ’;
`therebg assisting in concealing the Agency’s silence [as fraud.] regarding the USPTO’s long practiced [Pre AIA
`Enactment ‘Coloring ’.] venue to the Appeals Division to ‘Reexamine(Beneficial) Granted Patents’ [Treasonably.]
`for rescinding patentability [Contrary to U. S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Marshall’s ‘First Impression’
`Mandated Prohibition,
`in Fletcher v. Peck (1810).]. For reasons, of past crimes detectable and provable only
`through Audit Procedures. (c) _The nexus significance of this single infringement; however, manifests itself by the
`USPTO ‘Converting the Infringement
`into a Copyright for IBM’ distribution of the infringement worldwide as
`freeware subject to licensing as a copyright licensing to capture the global market to monopolize and minimize
`domestic and international competition; discouraging,
`investigation by making the crime appear overwhelming in
`size and complexity.
`»
`
`8
`
`

`

`in countless mobile and IoT Web application technologies which enabled two-way real-time Web
`
`transactions from Web applications displayed on a Web browser from wireless and other IoT
`
`devices/machines/apparatuses loaded with an infinite number of Web applications displayed on a
`
`’
`
`1
`
`Web browser. I rely on my intellectual property to support and protect this valuable Work.I do not
`
`seek exclusion of Proposed Respondents’ IoT devices that employ licensed IoT products and Web
`
`applications displayed on a Web browser and components, where the patents have been licensed
`
`from me. Licensees of my Asserted Patent currently sell IoT devices that use licensed IoT products
`
`and Web applications displayed on a Web browser and components, which are sufiicient
`
`(technically and commercially) to fill any void resulting from the exclusion of Proposed
`
`t
`
`Respondents’ IoT devices including non-licensed IoT products and Web applications displayed on
`
`a Web browser and components. This investigation does not concern Proposed Respondents’ IoT
`
`devices employing licensed IoT products and Web applications displayed on a Web browser and
`
`components, which can easily meet the public-demand for such devices. Infringement by use of
`
`non-licensed IoT products and Web applications displayed on a Web browser and components is
`
`purely a matter of choice on the part of Proposed Respondents.
`
`*-
`
`i
`
`My requested remedial orders raise no public interest concerns because: (l) the accused
`
`products do not serve any essential public health'or welfare objective; (2) any demand for the
`
`products that would be subject to the requested remedial orders could be filled by Proposed
`
`Respondents’ IoT devices and mobile electronic devices that employ licensed IoT_products and
`
`Web applications displayed on a Web browser and components; and (3) U.S. consumers would
`
`not face any potential shortage of like or directly competitive products. Accordingly,
`
`this
`
`investigation does not present any unique public interest concerns that would require the
`
`Commission to deviate from its practice of issuing remedial orders covering infringing IoT
`
`9
`
`

`

`devices. See, e.g., Certain Electronic Digital Media Devices and Components Thereof, Inv. No.
`
`337-TA—796, Comm’n Op.
`
`(9/6/2013); Certain Electronic Devices,
`
`Including Wireless
`
`Communication Devices, Portable Music and Data Processing Devices, and Tablet Computers,
`
`Inv. No. 337-TA-794, Comm’n Op.
`
`(7/5/2013); Certain Personal Data
`
`and Mobile
`
`Communications Devices and Related Software, Inv. No. 337-TA-710, Comm’n Op. (12/29/201 1).
`
`I.
`
`USE OF THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS IN THE UNITED STATES: Accusedproducts
`
`are Respondents’ imported IoT devices that do not incorporate licensed IoT products and Web
`
`applications displayed on a Web browser and components, infringe one or more claims of the
`
`Asserted Patent, manufactured abroad and sold to consumers and businesses throughout the USA.
`
`II.
`
`THE ACCUSED PRODUCTS DO NOT PRESENT ANY PUBLIC HEALTH,
`SAFETY, OR WELFARE CONCERNS RELATING TO THE REQUESTED
`REMEDIAL ORDERS: There are no public health, safety, or welfare considerations that
`
`that weigh against remedial relief. The accused products are common consumer goods and devices
`
`used in businesses, which the Commission has consistently found do not present public health,
`
`safety or welfare concerns. Electronic Digital Media Devices, Comm’n Op. at 114-115;Electronic
`
`Devices, Comm’n Op. at 109;Personal Data and Mobile Communications Devices, Comm’n Op.
`
`at 76. Apple has echoed this sentiment in previous investigations. Electronic Digital Media
`
`Devices, Apple’s Submission on Remedy, Bond, and Public Interest at 19 (6/11/2013) (mobile
`
`electronic devices “do not have any specialized public health, safety, or welfare applications, nor
`
`are they the type of products that affect public health and welfare”); Personal Data and Mobile
`
`Communications Devices, Apple’s Public Interest Statement at 2 (8/25/2011) ( “do not implicate
`
`any particular public health, safety, or welfare concerns”).
`
`NUMEROUS LIKE OR DIRECTLY COMPETITIVE ARTICLES ARE
`III.
`_ AVAILABLE TO SATISFY DEMAND FOR THE EXCLUDED PRODUCTS
`
`The U.S. mobile electronics and IoT devices market is highly competitive with a diverse
`
`10'
`
`

`

`field of participants offering products that directly compete with Proposed Respondents’ accused
`
`products. Third parties comprise more than 50% of the U.S. smartphone market and could easily
`
`ramp up production to replace any excluded Proposed Respondents’ products. Licensees of my
`
`Asserted Patent sell IoT devices that use a licensed IoT product and Web applications displayed
`
`on a Web browser and components, which could replace any accused products subject to an
`
`exclusion order. Remedial orders would not have any negative impact on competitive production
`
`in the USA because the accused products and their replacements are manufactured overseas. The
`
`Commission has explained that the consideration of the production of like or directly competitive
`
`articles does not weigh against issuance of a remedy when substitute products are available and
`
`the accused products are manufactured overseas. Certain Digital Televisions & Certain Prods.
`
`Containing Same & Methods of Using Same, Inv. No. 337-TA-617, Comm'n Op. at 15 (4/23/2009).
`
`IV.
`
`REMEDIAL ORDERS WOULD NOT NEGATIVELY IMPACT U.S.CONSUMERS
`
`If the Proposed Respondents’ products are excluded, U.S. consumers will continue to have
`
`numerous available options for IoT devices, including products sold by my Licensees that include
`
`a licensed IoT product and Web applications displayed on a Web browser and components. Thus,
`
`there will be no reduction in consumer choice.
`
`V
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION: This investigation does not present any special public interest issues.
`
`Issuance of the requested remedial relief against Proposed Respondents’ accused products will
`
`support the strong public interest in protecting intellectual property rights held by me. That interest
`
`is not outweighed by any hypothetical adverse impact to the U.S. public, especially because of the
`
`significant number of manufacturers that can readily satisfy any new demand created by issuance
`
`of the requested remedial orders. Accordingly, the.Commission should institute this investigation
`
`Without delegating public interest fact-finding to the Administrative Law Judge.
`
`11
`
`

`

`Dated: September 25, 20_17
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`<£OJ?.A/Q/\.--_;A \
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam,
`222 Stanford Ave,
`.. Q
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel: 650.690.0995
`'
`laks22002@yah00.c0m
`Pro Se Complainant Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`12
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`VIn the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN IOTDEVICES AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF (I0T, THE
`INTERNET OF THINGS (I0T) -- WEB
`APPLICATIONS DISPLAYED ON A
`WEB BROWSER)
`.
`
`I
`
`Investigation No.337-TA-if
`
`V
`
`VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT
`
`.
`
`I, Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, am the inventor and assignee of the asserted patent, U.S. Patent
`No. 7,930,340 (“the ‘340 patent”) and Pro Se Complainant (“Dr. Arunachalam") and am duly
`authorized by Complainant Dr. Amnachalam, to execute this verification of the accompanying
`Complaint under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,as Amended, on behalf of Complainant
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam. I wrote the Complaint and have read the Complaint and am aware of
`its contents. To the best of my knowledge, information, and belief and based upon a reasonable
`inquiry under the circumstances, I hereby certify that:
`
`l. The allegations contained in the Complaint are well grounded in fact and have
`evidentiary support, or are likely to have evidentiary support alter a reasonable
`opportunity for further investigation or discovery;
`e
`
`2. The claims and other legal contentions set forth in the Complaint are warranted by
`existing laws or by a good faith, non-frivolous argument for extension, modification, or
`reversal of existing law, or by the establishment of new law; and
`
`3. The Complaint is not being filed for any improper purpose, such as to harass or to cause
`unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation.
`_
`
`Dated: September 25, 2017
`
`Respectfillly submitted,
`
`_
`
`~
`
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam,
`222 Stanford Ave,
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel: 650.690.0995 t
`laks22002@yahoo.com
`
`13
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN I01‘DEVICESAND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF (IOT,THE
`INTERNET 0E THINGS (IOT) _ WEB
`APPLICATIONS DISPLAYED ON A
`WEB BRowsER)
`
`Investigation N0. 337-TA-_
`.
`
`DECLARATION BY DR. LAKSI-]1VIIARUNACHALAIVITHAT THE ATTACHED
`COPY OF U.S. PATENT NO. 7,930,340, ITS ASSIGNMENT RECORDS, ITS
`PROSECUTION HISTORY, AND PATENT AND APPLICABLE PAGES OF EACH
`TECHNICAL REFERENCE MENTIONED IN THE PROSECUTION HISTORY
`ARE TRUE AND CORRECT COPIES OF THE SAME AND THAT I HAVE ORDERED
`FROM THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`' TO SEND CERTIFIED COPIES OF THE SAME TO THE
`U.S. INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`
`I, Dr. Lakshmi Anmachalam, am the inventor and assig-neeof the asserted patent, U.S. Patent
`No. 7,930,340 (“the ‘34Opatent”) and Pro Se Complainant (“Dr. Arunachalam") of the
`accompanying Complaint under Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930,as Amended, do declare
`that:
`.
`.
`
`1. The attached copy of U.S. patent No. 7,930,340, included as Exhibit 1 to the Verified
`Complaint is a true and correct copy of the same;
`
`’
`
`2. The attached copy of the assignment records for the ’340 patent, copy of which is included
`as Exhibit 2 to the Verified Complaint is a true and correct copy of the same;
`’
`
`3. The attached copy of the prosecution history for the ’340 patent, copy of which is identified
`as Appendix A to the Verified Complaint is a true and correct copy of the same;
`
`4. The attached copy of each patent and applicable pages of each technical reference mentioned
`in the prosecution history of the ’340 patent, which is identified as Appendix B to the
`Verified Complaint is a true and correct copy of the same;
`'
`
`and that I have ordered each of the foregoing items 1%4 from the U.S. Patent and Trademark '
`Office to send Certified copies of the same to the U.S. International Trade Commission.
`
`I declare under penalty of peijury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`’
`
`Executed this 25th day of September, 2017 in Menlo Park, CA.
`
`14
`
`­
`­
`

`

`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam,
`222 Stanford Ave,
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel: 650.690.0995
`1aks22002@yah0o.c0m
`
`515
`
`

`

`UNITED STATES INTERNATIONAL TRADE COMMISSION
`i
`.
`WASHINGTON, D.C.
`
`In the Matter of
`
`CERTAIN IOTDEVICES AND
`COMPONENTS THEREOF (IOT,THE
`INTERNET OF THINGS (IoT) — WEB
`APPLICATIONS DISPLAYED ON A
`WEB BROWSER)
`
`Investigation N0. 337-TA­
`
`COMPLAINT UNDER SECTION 337 OF THE TARIFF ACT OF 1930,AS AMENDED
`
`PRO SE COMPLAINANT
`
`PROPOSED RESPONDENTS
`
`Lakshmi-Arunachalam, Ph.D.
`222 Stanford Avenue
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel: 650.690.0995
`
`International Business Machines Corporation
`1New Orchard Road,
`Armonk, New York 10504,
`Tel: 914. 499.6500
`
`[BM India Pvt Ltd
`No.12, Subramanya Arcade,
`Bannerghatta Main Road,
`Bangaluru, India - 560 029
`Tel: +918040683000
`
`SAP America, Inc.
`3999 West Chester Pike
`Newtown Square, PA 19073
`Tel: +1-610-661-1000
`
`SAP SE .—Walldorf
`Dietmar-Hopp-Allee -16
`69190 Walldorf, Gennany
`Phone: +49 (0)6227 / 7-47474
`
`Apple Inc.
`1 Infinite Loop,
`Cupertino, California 95014
`Tel: 408.996.1010
`
`JPMorgan Chase and Company
`270 Park Avenue,
`New York, NY
`Tel: 212-270-6000
`
`'
`
`

`

`The United States,‘
`Office of the Attorney General,
`U.S. Department of Justice
`950 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20530-0001
`Tel: 202.514.2000
`y
`
`_
`
`.
`
`United States Patent and Trademark Office,
`PO Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`Tel: 571.272.7000
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board,
`United States Patent and Trademark Office,
`PO Box 1450, Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`Tel: (571) 272-7822
`'
`,
`
`Facebook, Inc.
`1 Hacker Way
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel‘:650.543.4800; 650. 308.7300
`
`Microsoft Corporation,
`One Microsoft Way,
`Redmond, Washington 98052-6399
`Tel: (425) 882-8080
`
`h
`
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`85 Challenger Road,“
`"
`Ridgefield Park, NJ 07760
`Tel: 201.229.5000
`
`Samsung Electronics:Co., Ltd.
`129, Samsung-ro, Yeongtong-gu, Suwon-si,
`Gyeonggi-do, Korea;
`Headquarters: 40th floor Samsung Electronics
`Building, 11, Seocho-daero 74-gil,
`Seocho District, Seoul, South Korea
`Tel: 82-2-2255-0114
`
`Eclipse Foundation, Inc.; and its Members,
`102 Centrepointe Drive
`Ottawa, Ontario,Canada, K2G 6B1
`Tel: 1.613.224.9461
`
`.
`
`

`

`Fiserv Inc.
`255 Fiserv Drive,
`Brookfield, Wisconsin 53045 '
`Tel: (262) 879-5000
`V ­
`
`Fiserv India Pvt. Ltd.
`No.3, 2nd Floor, Prestige Blue Chip Business Park
`Hosur Road, Bangalore —560029, India
`Tel: +91 80670 83600
`_
`
`>
`
`Wells Fargo Bank
`420 Montgomery Street.
`San Francisco, CA 94163
`Tel: 1-800-869-3557
`Tel: 1.866.249.3302
`
`Citigroup, Citibank
`399 Park Avenue,
`New York, NY 10022; and
`388 Greenwich Street,
`New York, NY 10013
`Tel: 212.559.1000 and 800-285-3000
`
`"
`
`Citizen’s Financial Group, Inc.
`One Citizens Plaza,
`Providence, RI 02903
`Tel: 401.456.7000
`
`Fulton Financial Corporation
`One Penn Square, P. O. Box 4887,
`Lancaster, Pennsylvania 17602
`Tel: 717-291-2411
`
`'
`
`J. C. Penney Corporation, Inc., and
`J.C. Penney Company, Inc.
`6501 Legacy Dr,
`Plano, TX 75024
`Tel: (972) 431-1000
`
`_
`
`Inc.
`U—HaulInternational,
`Subsidiary of AMERCO,
`2727 N Central Ave
`Phoenix, AZ 85004
`Tel: (602) 263-6811
`
`

`

`Avis Rent A Car System, LLC,
`Avis Budget Group, and
`’
`Payless Car Rental,
`6 Sylvan Way
`Parsippany, NJ 07054
`Tel: 973-496-3500
`
`Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.
`The Hertz Corporation,
`Dollar Rent A Car, and
`Thrifty Car Rental,
`8501 Williams Road
`Estero, Florida 33928
`Tel: (239) 301-7000
`
`Ace Rent A Car
`4529 West 96th Street
`Indianapolis, IN 46268
`Tel: 1-317-248-5686
`
`Enterprise Holdings,
`Enterprise Rent-A-Car,
`National Car Rental, and
`Alamo Rent A Car,
`600 Corporate Park Drive
`Clayton/St. Louis, Missouri 63105
`Tel: (314) 512-5000
`_
`
`.
`
`'­
`Presidio Bank, _
`One Montgomery Tower
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Tel: 415.229.8400
`
`Fremont Bancorporation and Fremont Bank
`39150 Fremont Blvd,
`Fremont, CA 94538
`Tel: (510) 505-5221
`
`Heritage Bank of Commerce, and
`Focus Bank,
`150 S Almaden Blvd,
`San Jose, CA 95113 _
`Tel: 408.947.6900
`
`.
`
`iv
`
`­
`­
`

`

`_
`Bridge Bank,
`55 S Almaden Blvd,
`San Jose, CA 95113
`Tel: 408.423.8500
`
`V
`
`

`

`..I.
`
`Introduction.................................................
`
`..
`
`iOS ll-Home screen on iPhone 8...
`
`Synopsis.....................................................
`
`..
`
`Preface.......................................................
`
`-
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page No
`....1
`
`....7
`
`....8
`
`....9 '
`
`..10
`
`II. Background:The SocialContract....................
`
`III. The Significanceof the Invention...................
`
`..
`
`..
`
`Complainant...................................................................
`
`..25
`
`ProposedRespondents.....................................................
`
`The Technologyand Productsat Issue..................
`
`..
`
`...26
`..
`
`...43
`
`AssertedPatent.............................................................
`
`..
`
`...44
`
`A. U.S.PatentN0. 7,930,340.................
`
`1.
`
`Identification and Ownership of the I
`‘340Patent.....................................
`
`..
`
`........44
`
`...44
`
`....45
`2. Foreign Counterparts to the ‘340 Patent......................... ..
`
`'
`3. Non-Technical Description of the
`‘34OPatent...............
`....................
`
`..
`
`B. Licensees of the ‘340 Patent.......
`
`PROPOSED RESPONDENTS’ INFRINGEMENT OF
`THEASSERTEDPATENT..............................
`..
`
`A. Infringementofthe ‘340Patent.....................
`
`INFRINGEMENT OF THE ‘34OPATENT BY IBM,
`SAP AND EACH OF THE PROPOSED
`
`'
`
`vi
`
`...46
`
`....54
`
`....54
`
`.....55
`
`

`

`VII
`
`RelatedLitigation..........
`
`..........................
`
`..
`
`VIII.
`
`UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS OF
`RESPONDENTS —PATENT INFRINGEMENT .... ..
`
`IX.
`
`X.
`
`XI.
`
`UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS OF
`RESPONDENTS —USPTO/PTAB, A RICO
`ENTERPRISE.............................................
`
`..
`
`UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS OF
`RESPONDENTS —USPTO/PTAB BREACH OF
`CONTRACT WITH INVENTOR/COMPLAINANT..
`
`Breach of Public Trust and Fraud on the Court. . ......
`
`TheSocialContract.......................................
`
`..
`
`CAFC and District Courts’ Denial of Due Process to
`Inventor...................................................
`..
`
`UNLAWFUL AND UNFAIR ACTS OF
`RESPONDENTS —THE IBM ECLIPSE
`FOUNDATION’S THEFT OF
`DR. ARUNACHALAM’S INTELLECTUAL
`PROPERTY, MISAPPROPRIATION OF
`DR. ARUNACHALAM’S TRADE SECRETS
`BY IBM, MICROSFT AND SAP,
`COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT AND PATENT
`INFRINGEMENT BY THE IBM ECLIPSE
`FOUNDATION OF DR. ARUNACHALAM’S
`ASSERTEDPATENT..................................
`
`..
`
`Factsof IBM’sRacketeering............................
`
`..
`
`PTAB Judges McNamara and Stephen Siu have
`conflicts of interest in Microsofl, JPMorgan, SAP an
`other Litigants in Dr. Arunacha1am’sPatent
`Reexaminations,voidingtheir rulings................
`
`..
`
`d
`
`XII
`
`Specific Instances of Unfair Importation and,Sale,
`TradeShows...............................................
`
`..
`
`iOS 11Home screenon iPhone8.....................
`
`..
`
`XIII
`
`HARMONIZED TARIFF SCHEDULE NUMBERS..
`
`vii
`
`

`

`XIV. TheDomesticIndustry...................................................
`
`A. TechnicalProng......................................................
`
`..97
`
`..98
`
`B. EconomicProng.....................................................
`
`..98
`
`XV. RequestforRelief........................................................
`
`..104
`
`Verificationof Complaint............................................