`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`
`
`Executive Summary / Agenda
`
`1. Munoz does not teach specific limitations as claimed
`• Petitioner’s expert admits that Munoz does not disclose first
`message
`• Petitioner admits that “Munoz does not disclose adding new
`messages to the CAN bus”
`2. Petitioner fills gaps in Munoz’s disclosure to arrive at a
`hypothetical vehicle unlike any known to a POSITA
`• POSITA would have understood a retrofit to be based on vehicles of
`the time – as did Patent Owner’s Expert
`3. Petitioner’s expert has personal interest in outcome of trial
`• Mr. Leale has personal motivation for patents to be found invalid
`• Petitioner’s counsel violated PTAB practice rules to conceal conflict
`• Testimony in support of petitioner’s theory that is evidently false
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`2
`
`
`
`Munoz fails to teach first message,
`second message, and second data bus.
`
`’671 Patent
`
`’505 Patent
`
`Munoz
`
`Alleged original “open roof
`message” does not exist.
`
`Alleged spoofed “roof open
`message” does not exist.
`
`Munoz does not teach a
`separate second data bus.
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`3
`
`
`
`Gaps in Munoz must be filled with knowledge
`a POSITA had about automobiles at the time.
`
`Petitioner
`
`Patent Owner
`
`Gaps filled to read on ’671 and ’505 patents. Based
`solely on conflicted expert testimony.
`
`Gaps filled consistent with vehicles at the time
`and Munoz’s own demonstration: Does not
`read on ’671 and ’505 patents
`
`Dr. Shahbakhti
`Decl., ¶51
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`Dr. Shahbakhti
`Decl., ¶52
`
`4
`
`Internal Connection
`
`Displays messages,
`Receives feedback
`
`Micro
`Processor
`
`Trans-
`ceiver 1
`
`Two segments of the same bus
`
`Diagnostic
` Roof Open Command
`
`Factory cabriolet top
`open/close button
`
`
`
`Gaps in Munoz must be filled with knowledge
`a POSITA had about automobiles at the time.
`
`•
`
`Hypothetical vehicle unlike any
`known at the time
`
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`•
`
`2007 Volkswagen Eos (Ex. 2014)
`2007 Cadillac XLR (Ex. 2015)
`2007 Lexus SC 430 (Ex. 2016)
`2007 Mazda MX-5 Miata (Ex. 2017)
`2007 Saab 9-3 (Ex. 2018)
`2007 Pontiac G6 (Ex. 2019)
`2007 Mini Cooper (Ex. 2020)
`2007 Audi S4 (Ex. 2021)
`2007 Ford Mustang (Ex. 2022)
`2007 Porsche Boxster (Ex. 2023)
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`5
`
`Internal Connection
`
`Displays messages,
`Receives feedback
`
`Micro
`Processor
`
`Trans-
`ceiver 1
`
`Two segments of the same bus
`
`Diagnostic
` Roof Open Command
`
`Factory cabriolet top
`open/close button
`
`
`
`The first message
`(the original message that is spoofed)
`
`’671 Patent
`
`’505 Patent
`
`Petition:
`
`A bus message sent by the 2nd
`factory-installed apparatus (105)
`directed to 1st factory-installed
`apparatus (110) to control the
`roof (e.g., steps 312 and 314 of
`Fig. 3)
`
`Pet., 20
`
`Both experts
`disagree
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`6
`
`
`
`Both experts agree:
`Munoz does not teach the first message
`
`Petition
`
`A bus message sent by the
`2nd factory-installed
`apparatus (105) directed to
`1st factory-installed
`apparatus (110) to control
`the roof (e.g., steps 312 and
`314 of Fig. 3)
`
`Pet., 20
`
`Leale Deposition, 58
`
`Munoz does not disclose any communication
`between the original dashboard 105 and the
`roof control electronics 110.
`
`Dr. Shahbakhti
`Decl., ¶59
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`7
`
`
`
`Cabriolet Top Open/Close Buttons vs.
`Aftermarket accessory control
`
`Post-Retrofit Control
`
`2:65-3:3
`
`6:26-30
`
`3:43-47
`
`8:37-40
`
`Pre-Retrofit Control
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`8
`
`
`
`The second message
`(message that spoofs the first message)
`
`’671 Patent
`
`’505 Patent
`
`Petition
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 1
`
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 6
`
`Claim 10
`
`Claim 10
`
`“A POSITA would have understood that
`when the aftermarket functionality is
`disabled, a first CAN message sent from
`the original dashboard 105 intended for
`the original electronics to operate the
`factory-installed roof 110 would have
`been received by the retrofit roof
`control module 100, and the retrofit roof
`control module 100 would have
`transmitted a second CAN message,
`indistinguishable from the first CAN
`message, to the factory-installed roof
`110 with the proper information in the
`identifier field, and the identical
`command from the original dashboard
`105.”
`
`Pet., 25
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`9
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s false circular logic: “All communication”
`does not disclose specific messages.
`
`No explicit support for a first or second
`message. Petition relies on broad reference
`to “all communication.”
`
`First
`Message
`
`Reply, 8
`
`Second
`Message
`
`Leale Deposition, 67
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`10
`
`Leale Deposition, 69
`
`
`
`Munoz does not teach a gateway.
`
`Petition
`
`Munoz’s retrofit roof control
`module 100 is a “gateway
`through which” the factory-
`installed first apparatus 110
`transmits and/or receives
`messages from the vehicle data
`bus “A.”
`
`Pet.,39.
`
`Munoz, 4:21-23
`
`1. Munoz does not mention any gateway.
`
`2. There is no reason why Munoz device should include a
`gateway.
`
`3. Separating an existing vehicle network and re-connecting it as
`two separate networks with a gateway was not a known
`practice in 2007.
`
`4. Munoz explicitly teaches that the device does nothing when
`off.
`
`5. Designing an aftermarket device as a gateway rather than a
`simple pass-through makes Munoz unnecessarily complex.
`
`6. A gateway that operates as understood by Petitioner does not
`read on Munoz’s claims.
`
`See Dr. Shahbakhti
`Decl., ¶90-94
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`11
`
`
`
`Munoz does not teach a gateway.
`Teaches “no nothing” but not “gate messages.”
`
`Petition
`
`A POSITA would have understood
`that when the aftermarket
`functionality is disabled, a first
`CAN message sent from the
`original dashboard 105 intended
`for the original electronics to
`operate the factory-installed roof
`110 would have been received
`by the retrofit roof control
`module 100, and the retrofit roof
`control module 100 would have
`transmitted a second CAN
`message, indistinguishable from
`the first CAN message, to the
`factory-installed roof 110 with
`the proper information in the
`identifier field, and the identical
`command from the original
`dashboard 105.
`Pet., 25
`
`Munoz, FIGS. 3-7
`
`“Munoz expressly discloses that his device does nothing
`when the module is off.”
`
`Dr. Shahbakhti
`Decl., ¶109
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`12
`
`
`
`Munoz does not teach a second data bus.
`
`Petition
`
`Munoz teaches adding a second
`data bus “B” to the vehicle that
`provides a communication path
`from the retrofit roof control
`module 100 to 1st factory-
`installed apparatus 110. Munoz,
`6:32-36
`Pet., 24
`
`“Munoz does not teach a second data bus.”
`
`Dr. Shahbakhti Decl., ¶96
`
`“Munoz simply says that the bus wire (an electrical connection) is
`routed through (arranged to have a path through) the Roof
`Control Module.”
`
`Dr. Shahbakhti Decl., ¶85
`
`“A POSITA would have understood Munoz disclosure that ‘the
`original data connection will be terminated […]’ to describe a
`simple pass-through.”
`
`Dr. Shahbakhti Decl., ¶88
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`13
`
`
`
`The Roof Control Module 100 is only a portion
`of the Vario Plus Control Module 200
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2007, 8-9
`
`14
`
`
`
`Petition is based on feature with minimal
`disclosure – maximizes gaps to be filled with
`expert testimony.
`
`Convertible top control
`
`Horn upon lock
`
`Horn while reverse
`
`Emergency flasher.
`
`Blind spot assist.
`
`Open roof while driving.
`
`Ex. 2007, 52-53
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`15
`
`
`
`Mr. Leale is not a credible expert. The Board
`should give no weight to his testimony.
`
`Notably, Petitioner does not dispute that the Board should give no weight to
`the testimony of its expert, Mr. Leale.
`
`Sur-Reply, 1
`
`Ex. 1017, 1
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`Leale Deposition, 15
`
`16
`
`
`
`Mr. Leale has personal interest in the
`patents being found invalid
`
`Mr. Leale installs retrofit apparatuses
`and spoofs CAN messages as part of
`his business
`
`Petitioner’s counsel coached witness
`with lengthy speaking objections.
`
`Leale Deposition, 107
`
`Leale Deposition, 108-109
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`17
`
`
`
`Mr. Leale has personal interest that the
`patents be found invalid
`
`Petitioner’s counsel conferred with the
`witness during cross-examination
`
`“our customers are”
`
`Leale Deposition, 110
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial Practice Guide
`November 2019, page 127
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`18
`
`Leale Deposition, 112
`
`
`
`Mr. Leale claims to be familiar with vehicles
`that contradict his understanding of Munoz
`
`Mr. Leale says he is familiar with the
`Pontiac G6 and Saab 9-3…
`
`Both the Pontiac G6 and the Saab 9-3 used
`hardwired buttons, as was common practice.
`
`Leale Deposition, 16
`
`… and that Munoz would not work
`with hardwired buttons.
`
`Leale Deposition, 62
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`Dr. Shahbakhti
`Decl., ¶74
`
`Dr. Shahbakhti
`Decl., ¶73
`
`19
`
`
`
`Mr. Leale’s testimony regarding Pontiac
`G6 wiring is false.
`
`Pontiac G6 roof open/close switch is connected
`to folding top control module.
`
`Leale Deposition, 70
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`20
`
`Dr. Shahbakhti
`Decl., ¶74
`
`
`
`Mr. Leale’s testimony regarding Pontiac
`G6 diagnostic capabilities is false.
`
`Mr. Leale: Diagnostics cannot be used
`to close roof in Pontiac G6.
`
`Pontiac G6 Service Manual:
`Scan Tool can command folding top to close.
`
`Leale Deposition, 70
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2025, 6
`
`21
`
`
`
`Mr. Leale’s testimony regarding door
`control diagnostics is misleading.
`
`Mr. Leale during deposition: Diagnostics
`cannot be used to unlock doors
`
`Mr. Leale on YouTube:
`
`“Lock and unlock are also available if you want
`to, you know, build your own little lock and
`unlock app on your phone, which I did, which is
`a lot of fun, just for myself. “
`
`Leale Deposition, 70
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2032 (IPR ‚147)
`
`22
`
`
`
`Conclusion
`
`1. Munoz does not teach specific limitations as claimed
`• Petitioner’s expert admits that Munoz does not disclose first
`message
`• Petitioner admits that “Munoz does not disclose adding new
`messages to the CAN bus”
`2. Petitioner fills gaps in Munoz’s disclosure to arrive at a
`hypothetical vehicle unlike any known to a POSITA
`• POSITA would have understood a retrofit to be based on vehicles of
`the time – as did Patent Owner’s Expert
`3. Petitioner’s expert has personal interest in outcome of trial
`• Mr. Leale has personal motivation for patents to be found invalid
`• Petitioner’s counsel violated PTAB practice rules to conceal conflict
`• Testimony in support of petitioner’s theory that is evidently false
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`23
`
`
`
`DATASPEED INC. v. SUCXESS LLC
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Backup
`
`
`
`Example VW EOS: A real vehicle is much
`more complex than Munoz Fig. 1.
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2007, 8-9
`
`25
`
`
`
`Example VW EOS: A real vehicle is much
`more complex than Munoz Fig. 1.
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2007, 52-53
`
`26
`
`
`
`Example VW EOS: A real vehicle is much
`more complex than Munoz Fig. 1.
`
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibit - Not Evidence
`
`Ex. 2007, 38-39
`
`27
`
`