Trials@uspto.gov
`571-272-7822
`
`IPR2013-00194, Paper 72
`IPR2013-00195, Paper 65
`CBM2013-00013, Paper 67
`CBM2014-00018, Paper 32
`Date Entered: December 5, 2014
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`SAP AMERICA, INC.,
`Petitioner
`v.
`LAKSHMI ARUNACHALAM,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Case IPR2013-00194
`Patent 8,108,492 B2
`Case IPR2013-00195
`Patent 5,987,500
`Case CBM2013-00013
`Patent 8,037,158 B2
`Case CBM2014-00018
`Patent 8,037,158 B21
`____________
`
`Per curiam
`
`
`ORDER EXPUNGING UNAUTHORIZED FILINGS
`AND IMPOSING SANCTIONS
`Conduct of the Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are identical in related cases. Therefore,
`we exercise our discretion to issue one order to be filed in each case. The
`parties, however, are not authorized to use this style heading in any
`subsequent papers.
`
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00194; IPR2013-00195; CBM2013-00013; CBM2014-00018
`Patents 8,108,492 B2; 5,987,500; 8,037,158 B2; 8,037,158 B2
`
`
`Filings to Be Expunged
`On November 24, 2014, Lakshmi Arunachalam (“Patent Owner”) filed a
`paper styled Patent Owner’s Request For Relief From Judge’s Financial Conflict of
`Interest. IPR2013-00194, Paper 70; IPR2013-00195, Paper 63; CBM2013-00013,
`Paper 64; CBM2014-00018, Paper 30. (“the First Subject Papers”). The First
`Subject Papers request that the Board take certain actions and constitute a motion.
`37 C.F.R. 42.20(a). A motion will not be entered by the Board without prior
`authorization. 37 C.F.R. 42.20(b). Patent Owner did not seek or obtain
`authorization to file the First Subject Papers. .
`Prior to entry of this Order, we determined that the First Subject Papers
`contained sensitive information and unsubstantiated allegations concerning Judge
`Brian McNamara, who is administering the proceeding. Because Patent Owner
`had not sought authorization or guidance concerning filing the First Subject
`Papers, we could have expunged them immediately. Instead, we sua sponte
`designated the First Subject Papers as accessible to the Board and the parties only,
`while we considered action on Patent Owner’s unauthorized filings.
`On November 26, 2014, the First Subject Papers were released publicly on
`an Internet web site referring to Patent Owner by name. The web site includes a
`picture of Judge McNamara superimposed on a background of simulated targets
`with a skull and crossbones in a yellow triangle and a link to the First Subject
`Papers. The “who is” database for the linked site hosting the First Subject Papers
`lists identification information, at least some of which appears to be fabricated.
`Attempts to intimidate Judge McNamara, or any of the other persons identified on
`the Web site, are unacceptable.
`On December 3, 2014, Patent Owner filed still another unauthorized paper in
`each of these proceedings entitled Patent Owner’s Notice To PTAB About Denial
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00194; IPR2013-00195; CBM2013-00013; CBM2014-00018
`Patents 8,108,492 B2; 5,987,500; 8,037,158 B2; 8,037,158 B2
`
`of Due Process To Patent Owner and Motion To Recuse PTAB Judges (“Second
`Subject Papers”). IPR2013-00194, Paper 71; IPR2013-00195, Paper 64;
`CBM2013-00013, Papers 65 and 66 (filed twice); CBM2014-00018, Paper 31.
`The Second Subject Papers do not mention the Internet publication of the First
`Subject Papers or the attempts to intimidate Judge McNamara. Although the
`Second Subject Papers complain about our designating the First Subject Papers as
`“Board and Parties Only,” they do not explain how that designation denies Patent
`Owner due process. Instead, Patent Owner repeats bald, unsubstantiated
`allegations against Judge McNamara, alleges without any basis that Judge
`McNamara is biased toward Petitioner, states that Patent Owner is reporting Judge
`McNamara to various ethics committees, seeks Judge McNamara’s recusal, and
`requests that all previous decisions negative to Patent Owner be reversed. Patent
`Owner does not request reversal or reconsideration of a decision favorable to
`Patent Owner in another proceeding over which Judge McNamara presided.
`As indicated in the First Subject Papers, Patent Owner’s allegations stem
`from a theory that an official’s ownership of a de minimis interest in an entity not
`before the official but opposed to the Patent Owner in another proceeding, or
`ownership of any share of a publicly available, diversified mutual fund, not
`controlled by that official, presents a conflict when the fund holds shares in any
`party opposing the Patent Owner in any proceeding. This is not the law and Patent
`Owner has not demonstrated any conflict of interest by any judge in the
`proceedings involving Patent Owner. Patent Owner’s unauthorized motions are
`DENIED.
`Patent Owner failed to request authorization to file either the First Subject
`Papers or the Second Subject Papers. Therefore, the First Subject Papers and the
`Second Subject Papers will be expunged.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00194; IPR2013-00195; CBM2013-00013; CBM2014-00018
`Patents 8,108,492 B2; 5,987,500; 8,037,158 B2; 8,037,158 B2
`
`
`Sanctions
`We repeatedly have admonished Patent Owner to refrain from unauthorized
`filings. On September 15, 2014, alleging financial impropriety by the judges of the
`District Court for the District of Delaware, without first obtaining authorization,
`Patent Owner filed a paper titled Patent Owner Challenging Validity and
`Impartiality of Proceedings Due To Fraud Upon The Office and Request For Fraud
`Investigation By The Inspector General (“Request for Relief”). IPR2013-00194,
`Paper 63; IPR2013-00195, Paper 56; CBM2013-00013, Paper 57; CBM2014-
`00018, Paper 27. The following day, on September 16, 2014, during an initial
`conference in IPR2014-00413 and IPR2014-00414, we reminded Patent Owner of
`the requirement to seek authorization before filing motions with the Board. We
`reiterated this admonition in our Initial Conference Summary in those proceedings.
`SAP America, Inc., v. Lakshmi Arunachalam Case IPR2014-00413, Initial
`Conference Summary and Order to File Transcript (Paper 17, 5–6) (PTAB Sep. 17,
`2014). Notwithstanding our prior admonitions, on September 18, 2014, in
`IPR2013-00194, IPR2013-00195, and CBM2013-00013, Patent Owner filed yet
`another unauthorized paper styled Patent Owner’s Response to Petitioner’s
`Opposition. IPR2013-00194, Paper 65; IPR2013-00195, Paper 58; CBM2013-
`00013, Paper 59. In denying Patent Owner’s motion, we advised Patent Owner:
`“Further unauthorized motions, requests for relief, or other papers will not be
`considered and sanctions may be imposed.” SAP America, Inc., v. Lakshmi
`Arunachalam, Order Denying Patent Owner’s Request to Suspend Proceedings and
`Refer Matters to the Inspector General, Case IPR2013-00194 (Paper 66, 5) (PTAB,
`Sep. 18, 2014), Case IPR2014-00195(Paper 59, 5) (PTAB, Sep. 18, 2014), Case
`CBM2013-00013 (Paper 60, 5) (PTAB, Sep. 18, 2014), CBM2014-00018 (Paper
`28, 5) (Sep. 25, 2014) .
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00194; IPR2013-00195; CBM2013-00013; CBM2014-00018
`Patents 8,108,492 B2; 5,987,500; 8,037,158 B2; 8,037,158 B2
`
`
`Patent Owner’s filing of the First Subject Papers on November 24, 2014, is
`Patent Owner’s third offense. Patent Owner’s filing of the Second Subject Papers
`on December 3, 2014 constitutes a fourth offense. In view of Patent Owner’s
`refusal to conform to our rules, despite our repeated admonitions, we impose the
`following sanctions: (1) Patent Owner’s access to upload documents to the Patent
`Review Processing System (PRPS) for all past, present, and future proceedings is
`terminated immediately; (2) Patent Owner is prohibited from accessing, or
`attempting to access, PRPS to upload documents under a different name or through
`any real or corporate person, party, entity, agent, or successor in interest, other than
`qualified lead counsel; (3) any qualified lead counsel who, in any proceeding
`before the Board, wishes to represent a party opposing a challenge to a patent in
`which the Patent Owner is an inventor, or in which Patent Owner holds an
`ownership interest, either directly or through an ownership interest in a business
`entity of any kind, or in which Patent Owner has any right or ability to advise a
`party concerning any action to be taken in the proceeding, must first contact the
`Board to obtain permission to use PRPS to upload filings in that proceeding; (4)
`Patent Owner may file paper documents by mailing them to the address provided
`for in the rules – however, before Patent Owner submits any paper filings in any
`proceeding, Patent Owner must first obtain authorization of the Board by emailing
`Trials@uspto.gov or calling the Board to request a conference call; (5) any
`unauthorized filings will be expunged in their entirety. Patent Owner is reminded
`to serve all papers filed by mail on opposing counsel and to copy opposing counsel
`on any correspondence with the Board. Patent Owner must comply with all other
`rules and procedures in proceedings affected by this Order. Notwithstanding the
`above, Patent Owner may view, but not upload, documents on PRPS using the
`public access facility.
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00194; IPR2013-00195; CBM2013-00013; CBM2014-00018
`Patents 8,108,492 B2; 5,987,500; 8,037,158 B2; 8,037,158 B2
`
`
`Any violation of these sanctions or further action in disregard of the Board’s
`rules and orders by Patent Owner may result in entry of an adverse judgment.
`Finally, we note that in recent filings Patent Owner has been using the
`caption “SAP America v. Pi-Net International, Inc.” Pi-Net International, Inc.
`originally was identified as the real party in interest. The most recent Mandatory
`Notice in this proceeding identifies Lakshmi Arunachalam, who has been
`appearing pro se as Patent Owner, as the only real party in interest. If Pi-Net
`International, Inc. is again a real party in interest, Patent Owner should contact the
`Board for authorization to file an updated Mandatory Notice, as required by
`37 C.F.R. § 42.8(b)(1). Pi-Net International, Inc. must be represented by counsel.
`37 C.F.R. § 1.31. Patent Owner is directed to use the proper caption in all future
`papers.
`In consideration of the above, it is
`ORDERED that all motions or other requests by Patent Owner in the First
`Subject Papers and Second Subject Papers are DENIED;
`ORDERED that the First Subject Papers and the Second Subject Papers are
`EXPUNGED;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner’s access to upload documents to
`the Patent Review Processing System (PRPS) for all proceedings is terminated;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is prohibited from accessing, or
`attempting to access, PRPS to upload documents under a different name or
`thorough any real or corporate person, party, entity, agent, or successor in interest,
`other than qualified lead counsel;
`FURTHER ORDERED that any qualified lead counsel who, in any
`proceeding before the Board, wishes to represent a party opposing a challenge to a
`patent in which the Patent Owner is an inventor, or in which Patent Owner holds
`
`
`
`6
`
`

`

`IPR2013-00194; IPR2013-00195; CBM2013-00013; CBM2014-00018
`Patents 8,108,492 B2; 5,987,500; 8,037,158 B2; 8,037,158 B2
`
`an ownership interest, either directly or through an ownership interest in a business
`entity of any kind, or in which the Patent Owner has any right or ability to advise a
`party concerning actions to be taken in the proceeding must first contact the Board
`to obtain permission to use PRPS to upload filings in that proceeding;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner may file paper documents by
`mail, only after first obtaining authorization of the Board;
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is required to comply with all
`other rules and procedures applicable to proceedings affected by this Order;
`FURTHER ORDERED that any unauthorized filings by Patent Owner will
`be expunged in their entirety upon receipt; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that Patent Owner is to use the proper caption in all
`future papers the Board authorizes Patent Owner to file.
`
`
`PETITIONER:
`Lori A. Gordon
`Michael Q. Lee
`STERNE, KESSLER, GOLDSTEIN & FOX PLLC
`Lgordon-PTAB@skgf.com
`Mlee-PTAB@skgf.com
`
`PATENT OWNER:
`
`Lakshmi Arunachalam
`laks22002@yahoo.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`7
`
`