DATASPEED INC. v. SUCXESS LLC
`IPR2020-00116 & IPR2020-00147
`
`Patent Owner’s Demonstrative Exhibits
`
`
`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
`
`
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
