`Filed on behalf of Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`By: Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam, Pro Se
`
`
`222 Stanford Avenue
`
`
`
`
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`
`
`
`Tel: (650) 690-0995
`
`
`
`
`Fax: (650) 854-3393
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`_____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________________
`
`PATENT OWNER CHALLENGING VALIDITY AND IMPARTIALITY OF
`
`PROCEEDINGS DUE TO FRAUD UPON THE OFFICE AND REQUEST FOR
`
`FRAUD INVESTIGATION BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL
`
`In
`
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,037,158
`_____________________
`SAP America, Inc.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`Patent Owner
`
`__________________
`
`CASE CBM2013-00013
`
`Patent 8,037,158
`
`_____________________
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The briefing by both parties has been completed in this case. Oral argument was
`
`waived by both parties. The PTAB Decision on the outcome of the case is pending.
`
`B.
`
`FACTS AND ARGUMENT
`
`1.
`
`Request for this Matter to Be Designated as Contested due to
`
`Newly discovered Fraud on the Office
`
`The Board may designate a case as contested pursuant to § 41.102 (“as the
`
`Board may otherwise authorized”). Extenuating circumstances in this matter
`
`dictate that the Board contest these proceedings as invalid due to Fraud upon the
`
`Office by the district court, upon whose Markman Order the Office relies. See also
`
`Fraud upon the Office, § 1.620(g)(“ If the Office becomes aware, during the course
`
`of supplemental examination or of any reexamination ordered under 35 U.S.C. 257
`
`as a result of the supplemental examination proceeding, that a material fraud on
`
`the Office may have been committed in connection with the patent requested to be
`
`examined, …and the matter will be referred to the U.S. Attorney General in
`
`accordance with 35 U.S.C. 257(e).”) (emphasis added).
`
`
`
`Patent Owner respectfully challenges the invalidity arguments on the
`
`Claims in Patent 8,037,158 because the key underlying arguments are based upon
`
`newly discovered Fraud upon the Office.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`2.
`
`Undisclosed Financial Interests of Chief Judge Leonard P. Stark,
`
`Richard A. Andrews in J.P. Morgan Chase, Fedex, Well Fargo Bank,
`
`Citibank and Bank of America; and the fraudulent appointment of Judge
`
`Susan L. Robinson just one week before the Markman Hearing
`
`The Office relies upon a fraudulent Markman Opinion in CASE NO. 1:12-cv-
`
`282-SLR. The veracity of the Opinion is undermined by the discovery that the
`
`district court judges have engaged in Fraud upon the Office by failing to disclose
`
`their financial conflicts of interest in the holdings of J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo,
`
`Fedex and Citibank interests. These holdings irreparably taint the Markman Order
`
`upon which the Office relies in the pending reexamination decision. The following
`
`pleadings and motions, including exhibits, are incorporated as if fully restated
`
`herein: All filings in Case Nos. 1:12-cv-355-RGA and 1:12-cv-282-SLR between
`
`the dates of August 25, 2014 and September 16, 2014.
`
`3.
`
`Suspension of Proceedings
`
`The Board may suspend these proceedings pending the outcome of this
`
`Request pursuant to § 41.103.
`
`4.
`
`Investigate Fraudulent Conduct by the Courts
`
`The Board must refer this request to the Office of Inspector General pursuant
`
`to Title 48 § 533.209 (“In GSA, the agency official responsible for investigating
`
`fraud is the Office of Inspector General.”).
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM
`
`_/Lakshmi Arunachalam/_________
` Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`
`Pro Se Patent Owner
`
`C. REQUEST FOR RELIEF
`
`Patent Owner respectfully requests that the Board suspend these proceedings
`
`pending the resolution of the financial conflicts of interest by the district court and
`
`the appointment of an impartial tribunal to rehear the Markman Hearing.
`
`Petitioner further requests that the Board refer this matter forthwith to the Office of
`
`Inspector General to conduct a fraud investigation.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 15, 2014
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`222 Stanford Avenue
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`650.690.0995
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 CFR 42.6(e), 42.105(a))
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned “PATENT OWNER
`
`
`
`CHALLENGING VALIDITY AND IMPARTIALITY OF PROCEEDINGS DUE
`
`TO FRAUD UPON THE OFFICE AND REQUEST FOR FRAUD
`
`INVESTIGATION BY THE INSPECTOR GENERAL” in Case CBM2013-00013
`
`was served in its entirety on September 15, 2014, upon the following parties via e-
`
`mail:
`
`
`
`
`Lori A. Gordon and Michael Q. Lee
`
`
`
`SAP, America, Inc
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN
`
`
`
`Attn: Samir N. Pandya
`& FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sr. IP Counsel
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`
`
`SAP Global Litigation Group
`Washington, DC 20005
`
`
`3999 West Chester Pike
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`Newtown Square, PA 19073
`mlee-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`
`
`610.661.9767
`
`
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`
`
`Samir.pandya@sap.com
`Petitioner’s correspondence address Of record at the USPTO PTAB
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 15, 2014
`222 Stanford Avenue
`
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`
`650.690.0995
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`_/Lakshmi Arunachalam/_________
`Lakshmi Arunachalam
`Pro Se Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
