`Paper No. ____
`Filed: March 5, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`VENKAT KONDA
`Patent Owner
`
`
`
`Case: IPR2020-00260
`U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`
`
`
`PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO WITHDRAW MOTION TO AMEND
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00260
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Withdraw
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. BACKGROUND ............................................................................................ 1
`III. PO’S MOTION SHOULD BE DENIED ....................................................... 3
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................... 5
`
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00260
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Withdraw
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`Flex Logix Technologies, Inc. (“Petitioner”) submits this opposition to Patent
`
`I.
`
`Owner’s (“PO’s”) Motion to Withdraw his Motion to Amend (“MTA”). PO should
`
`not be allowed to escape an adverse ruling on his MTA and resulting estoppel. PO’s
`
`Motion to Withdraw is yet another example of PO’s abuse of process and improper
`
`use of judicial resources that has resulted in undue prejudice and unnecessary costs
`
`to Petitioner. Ruling on PO’s MTA will ensure efficient use of judicial and
`
`Petitioner’s resources, both with respect to PO’s reissue application for U.S. Patent
`
`No. 8,269,523 (“the ’523 patent”) as well as other related applications and patents.
`
`II. BACKGROUND
`The ’523 patent issued on September 18, 2012. (See Ex. 1001 at 1.) On
`
`November 27, 2018, after PO became aware that he had failed to timely pay a fee
`
`that led to the ’523 patent, PO filed a reissue application declaring that the ’523
`
`patent is “wholly or partially inoperative or invalid” because of his late payment.
`
`(Ex. 2005 at 586, 589-590.) Despite knowing the patent was defective, on December
`
`17, 2018, PO sued Petitioner alleging infringement of the ’523 patent and four other
`
`patents (“the Asserted Patents”). (Ex. 1050 at 1-2, 7-26.) The complaint represented
`
`that “[t]he ’523 patent is valid and enforceable” (id. at 8) and “was duly and lawfully
`
`issued” (id. at 7). PO did not inform the district court or Petitioner of the reissue
`
`application and his representation to the PTO that the ’523 patent was defective.
`
`1
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00260
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Withdraw
`
`What’s more, while PO was seeking to amend the claims of the ’523 patent in
`
`the reissue application in response to issues raised in litigation and co-pending PGRs
`
`involving U.S. Patent 10,003,553 (“the ’553 patent”), as of the May 22, 2020,
`
`teleconference with the Board, PO had not informed the reissue examiner of the ’523
`
`IPR and ’553 PGRs or the litigation. See PGR2019-00037, -00042 (“the ’553
`
`PGRs”); Ex. 1050; Ex. 2005. The Board recognized as much in its May 28, 2020,
`
`order, noted that it would notify the examiner of this proceeding (see Paper 11 at 31),
`
`and subsequently, sua sponte, stayed the reissue application (see Paper 24).
`
`Similar to PO’s conduct above and as far as Petitioner can tell, PO has not
`
`informed the examiners of applications related to the ’523 patent, including
`
`continuations of the Asserted Patents, of this IPR or the ’553 PGRs even though
`
`those applications include similar claim language and are likely to be impacted by
`
`determinations in this IPR and the ’553 PGRs. (See, e.g., U.S. Patent Application
`
`Nos. 15/859,726, 15/884,911, 15/984,408, 16/029,645, 16/562,450, 16/671,177,
`
`16/671,191, 16/671,193, and 17/167,093.) Some of these applications have issued,
`
`while others are not accessible to the public or Petitioner.
`
`
`1 The Board also noted PO’s other improper behavior (see Paper 11 at 6-7), which
`
`has continued. (See Ex. 1057 (email correspondence) (highlighting added).)
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00260
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Withdraw
`
`
`III. PO’s Motion to Withdraw Should Be Denied
`PO’s Motion to Withdraw does not provide any meaningful reason for
`
`withdrawal and instead argues the merits of the MTA.2 PO’s argument regarding
`
`the MTA being “contingent” such that PO is free to withdraw it at any time is wrong,
`
`as “contingent” relates to patentability of the as-issued claims. Even if PO can
`
`withdraw his MTA, he should not be allowed to do so for at least three reasons.
`
`First, a decision on the MTA, including resolution as to issues raised by the
`
`MTA (e.g., whether the prior art discloses certain claim features), ensures that those
`
`issues will not have to be revisited during prosecution of the reissue or in any
`
`subsequent proceedings involving any resulting patent. The Board and Petitioner
`
`have already invested significant resources in addressing the issues raised by the
`
`MTA, and resolving those issues here would be more efficient.
`
`Second, a decision on the MTA conserves judicial resources with respect to
`
`the related patents and pending applications. There is a great deal of overlap between
`
`the ’523 patent claim language and that used in PO’s other patents and applications,
`
`and therefore determinations made here are likely to have ramifications with respect
`
`
`2 PO’s Motion fails to mention adverse facts, including that the reissue examiner
`
`rejected amended claims in the reissue based on Wong. (Ex. 1058, 20-31.)
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00260
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Withdraw
`
`to those patents and applications. Indeed, PO continues to prosecute such related
`
`applications without notifying the examiners of this IPR or the ’553 PGRs. PO’s
`
`actions in soon-to-issue application 16/562,450 are representative of PO’s conduct.
`
`PO has repeatedly amended the ’450 application without notifying the Examiner of
`
`the IPR or ’553 PGRs or any relevant decisions from them. (See, e.g., highlighted
`
`portions in Ex. 1055, 511, 517 (“y≥1” stages changed to “y≥2”); id., 529, 533, 536
`
`(modifying the specification and drawings in an attempt to include a same-stage
`
`cross link feature the Board indicated was not disclosed in the ’553 PGRs).) Indeed,
`
`PO has submitted three amendments after allowance in the ’450 application in the
`
`last three months (id., 12, 37, 255), including a February 3, 2021 amendment
`
`clearly inspired by Petitioner’s filings in this proceeding as it changes “plurality” in
`
`the claims to “one or more” (id., 15, 25). What’s more, PO inaccurately stated that
`
`the amendments “do not change the scope of the previously allowed claims” (id., 13,
`
`30) and paid the issue fee on February 14, 2001 (id., 2-5).
`
`Third, letting PO withdraw the MTA will only encourage PO’s conduct,
`
`which constitutes an abuse of process and is extremely prejudicial to Petitioner.
`
`Indeed, this is not the first time PO has filed a paper and withdrawn it. In the
`
`litigation, Petitioner filed a motion to dismiss on the basis that some of the Asserted
`
`Patents were necessarily invalid. (Ex. 1056, 11:16-12:5, 13:9-18:9, 21:25-23:24.)
`
`In response, PO dismissed the lawsuit without prejudice, presumably to avoid an
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00260
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Withdraw
`
`adverse ruling on invalidity. PO’s Motion to Withdraw, like its dismissal of the
`
`lawsuit, is aimed at avoiding an adverse ruling and resulting estoppel.
`
`Given PO’s conduct and as was done by the Board in another IPR (see Paper
`
`39, IPR2019-01490), Petitioner requests that the Board order PO to provide a list of
`
`any recently-issued patents and pending applications before the Office relating to
`
`the ’523 patent and that have claim language similar to what is at issue here. Once
`
`PO does so, the Board should consider notifying the examiners in the identified
`
`pending applications of this IPR and the ’553 PGRs, the relevant decisions from
`
`them, and PO’s conduct (or require that PO to do as much) so that the Office can
`
`take appropriate action, including suspension of prosecution of these pending
`
`applications until the termination or completion of this IPR and the ’553 PGRs.
`
`Finally, contrary to PO’s assertion that there is no basis for fees here,
`
`Petitioner requests that the Board consider awarding fees or any other sanctions it
`
`deems appropriate given PO’s tactics and abuse of process. See 37 C.F.R. § 42.12
`
`(stating that “[t]he Board may impose a sanction against a party for misconduct,
`
`including . . . [e]ngaging in dilatory tactics [and] [a]ny other improper use of the
`
`proceeding, including actions that harass or cause unnecessary delay or an
`
`unnecessary increase in the cost of the proceeding”).
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`For the foregoing reasons, PO’s Motion to Withdraw should be denied.
`
`5
`
`
`
`Dated: March 5, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00260
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Withdraw
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Naveen Modi/
` Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case IPR2020-00260
`Petitioner’s Opposition to Motion to Withdraw
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e), I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Withdraw Motion to
`
`Amend and supporting exhibits to be sent by electronic means on March 5, 2021 to
`
`the following address of record:
`
`<venkat@kondatech.com>
`
`Dated: March 5, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Naveen Modi/
` Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`
`
`