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’s Response to Petitioner’s Opposition
`
`In
`
`Covered Business Method Review of U.S. Patent No. 8,037,158
`
`_____________________
`
`SAP America, Inc.
`
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`Patent Owner
`
`_____________________
`
`CASE CBM2013-00158
`
`Patent 8,037,158
`
`_____________________
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Petitioner fails to note that the DE Judge recently granted the Defendants’ motion for
`
`extension of time on Dr. Arunachalam’s Motion to Substitute Plaintiff, delaying her
`
`constitutional right to self-representation, basing this on the pending PTAB Decision on the ‘500,
`
`492 and ‘158 Patents, and trying to drag the PTAB into the quagmire of fraud on the court,
`
`collusion and judicial corruption among the officers of the Court and DE Judges.
`
`Chief Judge Randall R. Rader’s resignation proves that Dr. Arunachalam’s judicial ethical
`
`concerns in Leader Techs v. Facebook were justified, not frivolous: Petitioner cites a Federal
`
`Circuit order regarding judicial conflicts of interest in Leader Techs v. Facebook. The Federal
`
`Circuit Bar Association (“FCBA”) later moved to have that order made precedential.1 The
`
`FCBA attorney who filed the motion on that order was Edward R. Reines, Weil Gotshal LLP.
`
`Federal Circuit Chief Judge Randall R. Rader, who was managing Leader’s appeal, did not
`
`disclose his conflicts with Reines. Recently, Reines was discovered to be colluding with Judge
`
`Rader, who later resigned the bench in disgrace. Dr. Arunachalam was right to argue that
`
`corruption and conflicts of interest were at play. The FCBA evidently believed that Dr.
`
`Arunachalam’s arguments merited intervention by the FCBA. Therefore, Petitioner argues that
`
`the FCBA’s motion was frivolous too. In fact, fraud was occurring, as it is in this case.
`
`Respected lawyer/legal commentator, Harold C. Wenger, believed Dr. Arunachalam’s arguments
`
`in Leader Techs v. Facebook were meritorious enough that he republished them on the Los
`
`Angeles Intellectual Property Law Association (“LAIPLA”) website on May 29, 2013.2
`
`Petitioner is impugning Mr. Wenger’s integrity as well. The docket games played at the Federal
`
`
`1 Federal Circuit Bar Association's Request for Reissue Re. Leader v. Facebook, Case No. 2011-1366
`(Fed. Cir.), Sep. 17, 2012 http://www.fbcoverup.com/docs/federalcircuit/Response-to-Request-of-Federal
`Circuit-Bar-Association-s-Request-for-Reissue-Re-Leader-v-Facebook-Case-No-2011-1366-Fed-Cir-by-
`Lakshmi-Arunach.pdf#page=31
`2 “The Departure of Circuit Executive Jan Horbaly (con’d)” by Harold Wenger, LAIPLA, May 29, 2013
`http://www.laipla.net/the-departure-of-circuit-executive-jan-horbaly-cond/
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Circuit triggered the resignations of Chief Judge Randall R. Rader and Clerk of Court Jan
`
`Horbaly. Reines’ FCBA motion disappeared from the docket, after Dr. Arunachalam’s blistering
`
`rebuttal that discredited the FCBA motion and tellingly, Clerk of Court Jan Horbaly also
`
`resigned in disgrace. However, Dr. Arunachalam was served a copy of that motion. Petitioner
`
`argues the mutual fund safe harbor, but fails to cite the numerous exceptions to the rule:
`
`Judges are not absolved from disclosure responsibilities by hiding behind the paper-thin mutual
`
`fund veil. Recusal may be required if a judge has an “interest that could be affected substantially
`
`by the outcome of the proceeding.” A mutual fund that invests in only a few companies in a
`
`particular industry would be more likely to be substantially affected by certain types of litigation
`
`involving one of them. The DE Court Judges hold narrow financial sector/industry mutual funds.
`
`Per Canon 4D(3), § 455(b)(4) and § 455(f), “[a] judge should divest investments and other
`
`financial interests that might require frequent disqualification.” Canon 3C(1) directs judges to
`
`disqualify if the judge’s impartiality might reasonably be questioned. Each situation should be
`
`assessed on a case-by-case basis. Under the Judicial Conference policy on electronic conflicts
`
`screening, JCUS-SEP 06, p.11, a judge has a continuing obligation to update the judge’s list of
`
`financial interests that would require recusal, the scope of their financial disclosure obligations
`
`may change as their sector fund, industry fund, ETF, blind trust or SMA portfolio develops. See
`
`The Committee Guide to Judiciary Policy, Vol. 2B, Ch. 2 Page 106-2. The PTAB must stay all
`
`pending IPR, CBM cases and Decisions until this huge mess is sorted out in DE.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 18, 2014
`
`222 Stanford Avenue
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`650.690.0995
`
`Laks22002@yahoo.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`DR. LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM
`
`/Lakshmi Arunachalam/
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`Pro Se Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATION OF SERVICE (37 CFR 42.6(e), 42.105(a))
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the above-captioned “Patent Owner’s Response to
`Petitioner’s Opposition” in Case CBM2013-00013 was served in its entirety on September 18,
`2014, upon the following parties via eMail:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SAP, America, Inc
`
`
`Attn: Samir N. Pandya
`
`
`Counsel
`
`
`
`SAP Global Litigation Group
`
`3999 West Chester Pike
`
`
`Newtown Square, PA 19073
`
`610.661.9767
`
`
`
`Samir.pandya@sap.com
`
`Petitioner’s correspondence address
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Date: September 18, 2014
`222 Stanford Avenue
`Menlo Park, CA 94025
`650.690.0995
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Lori A. Gordon and Michael Q. Lee
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN Sr. IP
`& FOX P.L.L.C.
`
`
`
`1100 New York Avenue, NW
`Washington, DC 20005
`lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`mlee-PTAB@skgf.com
`Attorneys for Petitioner
`Of record at the USPTO PTAB
`
`
`
`
`
`Dr. Lakshmi Arunachalam
`
`/Lakshmi Arunachalam/
`Lakshmi Arunachalam
`Pro Se Patent Owner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`