`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAP AMERICA, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case CBM2013-00013
`Patent 8,037,158
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S REPLY TO PATENT OWNER’S
`CHALLENGING VALIDITY AND IMPARTIALITY OF
`PROCEEDING DUE TO FRAUD UPON THE OFFICE AND
`REQUEST FOR FRAUD INVESTIGATION BY THE
`INSPECTOR GENERAL
`
`
`
`Mail Stop "PATENT BOARD"
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`U.S. Patent and Trademark Office
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAP
`
`Exhibit No.
`SAP 1001
`
`
`SAP 1002
`
`SAP 1003
`
`
`SAP 1004
`
`
`SAP 1005
`
`
`SAP 1006
`
`
`SAP 1007
`
`SAP 1008
`
`
`SAP 1009
`
`
`SAP 1010
`
`
`SAP 1011
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`Document Description
`U.S. Patent No. 8,037,158 to Arunachalam (filed Oct. 30, 2007;
`issued Oct. 11, 2011) (“the ’158 patent”).
`
`Prosecution History of U.S. Patent No. 8,037,158.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Marvin Sirbu (including Curriculum Vitae of
`Dr. Sirbu, attached as Appendix A; “Requirements for Internet
`Hosts—Communication Layers” by Braden as Appendix B;
`and, “Stanford Federal Credit Union Pioneers Online Financial
`Services” published by Business Wire as Appendix C).
`
`Lipis, A. H. et al., “Electronic Banking,” The Stock Market, 4th
`Edition, John Wiley & Sons, New York, 1985, 227 pages.
`
`Stanford Federal Credit Union Pioneers Online Financial
`Services.
`
`U.S. Patent No. 5,220,501 to Lawlor et al. (filed Mar. 15, 1984;
`issued Mar. 3, 1987).
`
`Computerworld, June 26, 1995.
`
`Citizens Bank and Financial Fusion – Professional
`Development and Services Agreement (redacted)
`
`Order Granting Stay in Pi-Net International, Inc. v. Citizen’s
`Financial Group Inc., No. 1:12-cv-00355 (D. Del.), June 21,
`2013.
`
`Declaration of Dr. Marvin Sirbu in Support of Petitioner’s
`Reply to Patent Owner’s Corrected Response to Petition.
`
`Patent Owner’s Corrected Response in proceeding IPR2013-
`00194 filed Feb. 5, 2014, Paper No. 34.
`
`- i -
`
`
`
`
`
`SAP 1012
`
`SAP 1013
`
`
`
`
`SAP 1014
`
`Joint Claim Construction Chart in Pi-Net v. JP Morgan Chase
`& Co., et al, No. 1:12-cv-00356 (D. Del), March 13, 2013.
`
`Memorandum Opinion in Pi-Net International, Inc. v.
`JPMorgan Chase & Co., No. 1:12-cv-00282 (D. Del), May 14,
`2014.
`
`Currently Filed
`
`Leader Techs. V. Facebook, Inc., 2012 U.S. App. Lexis 17259
`
`
`
`- ii -
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`For the reasons set forth below, Petitioner SAP America, Inc. opposes Patent
`
`Owner’s September 15, 2014 unsupported and scandalous accusations that the
`
`district court committed fraud on the Patent Office by failing to disclose “financial
`
`conflicts of interest” in the holdings of J.P. Morgan, Wells Fargo, Fedex and
`
`Citibank interests. (PO’s Notice at 2-3.)
`
`1. Patent Owner’s Fraud Argument Is Baseless.
`PO argues that the Markman Opinion is fraudulent because of the district
`
`
`
`court’s so-called financial conflicts of interest. PO presents no argument to support
`
`its conclusory statements about fraud and conflicts of interest. (PO’s Notice at 3).
`
`
`
`Sadly, this is not the first time PO has tried this gambit, baselessly arguing
`
`judicial bias resulting from ownership of mutual funds. (See SAP 1020 at 2-3). In
`
`Leader Tech (an unrelated case), the Federal Circuit rejected this PO’s attacks on
`
`the Federal Circuit’s honor, ruling that her allegations were at odds with Federal
`
`Circuit law and the Canons of Judicial Conduct and did not represent a conflict of
`
`interest, because “ownership in a mutual or common investment fund that holds
`
`securities is not a 'financial interest' in such securities unless the judge participates
`
`in the management of the fund.” (Id at 3.)
`
`
`
`In her instant challenge, PO has not provided any evidence that the accused
`
`judges—Chief Judge Stark and Judge Andrews—ever participated in the
`
`management of any of their respective mutual fund holdings. Moreover, PO does
`
`
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`
`
`not provide any evidence that the Markman Opinion issued by Judge Robinson
`
`was fraudulent. But as SAP will show in the next section, PO’s baseless and
`
`scurrilous charges of fraud have no relevance to these Patent Office proceedings.
`
`2. The Board Did Not Rely On The Markman Hearing In This CBM.
`It is well-known that, absent good cause shown, a CBM proceeding must be
`
`
`
`completed within one year of institution. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11). Here, PO’s
`
`baseless arguments do not justify a stay that extends the proceeding. Moreover,
`
`PO incorrectly argues that the district court’s Markman Opinion somehow
`
`constitutes material fraud on the Office. However, the Board did not rely on the
`
`district court’s Markman Opinion because, in a covered business method review,
`
`the Board construes claims using the broadest reasonable interpretation, a different
`
`standard from than used by the district court. See Office Patent Trial Practice
`
`Guide, 77 Fed. Reg. 48756, 48766 (Aug. 14, 2012). Furthermore, the Board could
`
`not rely on the Markman Opinion because the Markman Opinion was issued on
`
`May 14, 2014, months after the Institution Decision.
`
`
`
`SAP asks the Board to deny PO’s request to suspend this proceeding.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 17, 2014
`
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`
`
`/Lori A. Gordon/
`
`Lori A. Gordon (Registration No. 50,633)
`Attorney for Petitioner
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on this 17th day of September, 2014,
`
`“Petitioner’s Reply To Patent Owner’s Challenging Validity And Impartiality Of
`
`Proceeding Due To Fraud Upon The Office And Request For Fraud Investigation
`
`By The Inspector General” was served electronically via e-mail upon the
`
`following counsel for PO, Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`STERNE, KESSLER,
`GOLDSTEIN & FOX P.L.L.C
`
`/Lori A. Gordon/
`
`Lori A. Gordon
`Attorney for Petitioner
`Registration No. 50,633
`
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`Pro Se PO
`222 Stafford Avenue
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`Tel.: 650.690.0995
`Fax: 650.854.3393
`laks22002@yahoo.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 17, 2014
`1100 New York Avenue, N.W.
`Washington, D.C.20005-3934
` (202) 371-2600
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
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
