`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 CBM2014-00018
`
`Patent 8,037,158
`
`_____________________
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`A.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`The briefing by both parties has been completed in this case. Oral argument was
`
`not requested by either party. 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 CBM2014-00018
`
`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
`
`