`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`________________________
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`________________________
`
`
`CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`FATPIPE NETWORKS PRIVATE LIMITED,
`
`Patent Owner.
`______________
`
`Case IPR2017-01845
`U.S. Patent No. 6,775,235
`
`____________
`
`
`DECLARATION OF SANCHAITA DATTA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2013, pg. 1
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I, Sanchaita Datta, hereby declare as follows:
`
`1. My name is Sanchaita Datta. I am a Co-founder, President,
`
`and Chief Technology Officer of FatPipe Networks Private Limited and
`
`FatPipe, Inc. (collectively “FatPipe”) I make this declaration from my
`
`personal knowledge. All statements concerning the title of Cisco and
`
`Viptela employees are made to the best of my recollection, based on
`
`information and belief.
`
`2.
`
`FatPipe is a small disadvantaged business enterprise (DBE)
`
`founded by two immigrants (me and my husband, Dr. Ragula Bhaskar).
`
`Together, we built FatPipe using our life savings, with a small
`
`investment from others. Over the past 15 years, we have grown
`
`FatPipe, Inc. into a company with 74 employees in the U.S. We have
`
`also acquired 11 U.S. patents covering the technology that goes into
`
`FatpPipe’s products. Over the last 18 years, we spent our lifetime
`
`developing a technology now called SDWAN to overcome the limitations
`
`of routers developed by companies like Cisco, and other telecom
`
`companies that sought to dominate the telco market by limiting
`
`customers in their choice of telcos. Our technology helps connect
`
`multiple low cost lines to reduce costs, without telcos and routers
`
`
`
`1
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2013, pg. 2
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`
`
`having to use BGP (Border Gateway Protocol) programming, saving the
`
`customer money. Further, our technology eliminates the need for
`
`routers to communicate with each other to share routing information.
`
`Additionally, our technology decreases overhead cost by reducing the
`
`need for a Cisco Certified Engineer to design and implement a corporate
`
`WAN. In fact, newer DSL and Ethernet internet connections eliminate the need for
`
`a router, which means there are no two routers to talk to each other. FatPipe works
`
`with all Internet or Wide Area technologies, whether there is a router at the end, or
`
`a modem (DSL, cable, etc.), or no router at all, such as an Ethernet or fiber
`
`handoff, obviating the need to program routers to talk to each other to decide paths.
`
`This represents a technological leap compared to Cisco’s technology. For the first
`
`time, end users have the ability to use multiple internet/WAN connections without
`
`the need for a Cisco certified programmer, a revolution called SDWAN.
`
`3.
`
`FatPipe has met with petitioner Cisco Systems, Inc. on
`
`numerous occasions and provided Cisco with information about U.S.
`
`Patent Nos. 6,775,235 (“the ’235 patent”) and 7,406, 048 (“the ’048
`
`patent”) (collectively, “the targeted patents”) and with notice of
`
`FatPipe’s lawsuit against Viptela for infringing the targeted patents.
`
`Beginning in January 2014, Dr. Bhaskar met with Ali Sheikh,
`
`Corporate Development and Venture Investment Associate at Cisco,
`
`2
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2013, pg. 3
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`
`
`and his team to present FatPipe’s technology in attempt to license the
`
`targeted patents to Cisco. As part of the presentation, a PowerPoint—
`
`entitled Software Defined Solutions for Mission Critical Clouse Access,
`
`Multi line WAN redundancy without BGP Automatic session load
`
`balancing and failover for all applications-99.999988% WAN
`
`reliability—was presented to provide information about the targeted
`
`patents, among other things. Exhibit 2014 is a true and accurate copy of
`
`that presentation. Further, on January 8, 2014, following the
`
`presentation a copy of the PowerPoint was provided, via email, to Mr.
`
`Sheikh. Exhibit 2015 includes a true and accurate copy of the email
`
`forwarding the presentation to Mr. Sheikh.
`
`4.
`
` Again, in October 2015, I was involved in discussions with
`
`Liad Ofek and Chandrodaya Prasad of Cisco to setup up a presentation
`
`of FatPipe’s technology in an attempt to re-discuss a technology
`
`partnership with Cisco. Mr. Ofek and Mr. Prasad were both Directors of
`
`Product Management at Cisco. On December 1, 2015, Mr. Prasad and I
`
`confirmed a date and time for FatPipe to give a presentation on the
`
`technology at issue via Webex—December 3, 2015, at 11:30 a.m.-12:30
`
`p.m. PST. That Webex meeting between FatPipe and Cisco took place
`
`3
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2013, pg. 4
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`
`
`as scheduled. Exhibit 2016 includes a true and accurate copy of the
`
`email that confirmed the date and time for that Webex meeting. On
`
`December 4, 2014, the day after the presentation, I provided Mr.
`
`Prasad, via email, the PowerPoint presentation from the meeting, and
`
`information on FatPipe’s 11 patents. Exhibit 2017 includes a true and
`
`accurate copy of the email that forwarded that presentation to Mr.
`
`Prasad. Furthermore, the PowerPoint presentation, entitled FatPipe
`
`Networks Corporate Overview, provided information about the targeted
`
`patents. Exhibit 2018 is a true and accurate copy of that presentation.
`
`5.
`
`In February 2016, an investor with high-ranking contacts at
`
`Cisco connected Cisco with FatPipe. Shortly afterwards, Dr. Bhaskar
`
`sent a Cisco executive an email describing FatPipe’s technology and
`
`disclosing that FatPipe owns 11 key U.S. patents. The purpose of this
`
`communication was to explore whether Cisco was interested in
`
`investing FatPipe or otherwise partnering with respect to FatPipe’s
`
`technology.
`
`6.
`
`In October of 2016, Dr. Bhaskar emailed Cisco to arrange a
`
`meeting to discuss partnering on FatPipe’s technology. In response to
`
`that email, Matt Carbonara, Director of Strategic Business at Cisco,
`
`4
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2013, pg. 5
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`
`
`responded and Dr. Bhaskar emailed him a presentation. As a result,
`
`Mr. Carbonara scheduled a meeting for November 7, 2016, with FatPipe
`
`(Dr. Bhaskar and myself), Matt Forester (Venture Investment and
`
`Acquisition Associate), and himself. The targeted patents were
`
`discussed during the meeting.
`
`7.
`
`Additionally, Mr. Carbonara arranged a follow-up meeting
`
`for December 19, 2016. In an email dated December 15, 2016, Mr.
`
`Carbonara expressed that “[i]t would be great if you [Sanchaita Datta]
`
`can talk more about the product, particularly SDWAN capabilities as
`
`well as customers, use cases and competitive landscape.” Exhibit 2019
`
`includes a true and accurate copy of that email. At the meeting, Dr.
`
`Bhaskar and I discussed the ’048 and ’235 patents with Mr. Carbonara,
`
`as well as the district-court litigation pending against Talari and
`
`Viptela for their infringement of those patents. Although direct
`
`communications with Cisco had been friendly through this point,
`
`Cisco—a $49 billion company with over 74,000 employees and a $60
`
`billion bankroll—had consistently tried to bully FatPipe in the
`
`marketplace by undercutting the price of FatPipe’s products in order to
`
`compete with FatPipe, and as an attempt to dominate the market.
`
`5
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2013, pg. 6
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`
`
`
`
`8. On October 3, 2017, Dr. Bhaskar and I had a conference call
`
`with Bill Silverio, Senior Corporate Counsel for IP Litigation at Cisco,
`
`to discuss settling the Viptela lawsuit and the inter partes review
`
`proceedings that Viptela and Cisco initiated against the targeted
`
`patents. Mr. Silverio expressed that Cisco would like a license to use
`
`FatPipe’s patents without paying any money for the privilege of settling
`
`the lawsuit and the IPRs. Mr. Silverio also expressed that if Cisco’s
`
`terms were not met, then Cisco would “go after” all of FatPipe’s patents.
`
`9.
`
`I declare that all statements made herein of my own
`
`knowledge are true and that all statements made on information and
`
`belief are believed to be true; and further that these statements were
`
`made with the knowledge that willful false statements and the like so
`
`made are punishable by fine or imprisonment, or both, under Section
`
`1001 of Title 18 of the United States Code. I declare under penalty of
`
`perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed on this 1st day of December, 2017.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Sanchaita Datta/
`Sanchaita Datta
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`FatPipe Exhibit 2013, pg. 7
`Cisco v. FatPipe
`IPR2017-01845
`
`