throbber
From: Venkat Konda <venkat@kondatech.com>
`Sent: Monday, March 8, 2021 2:16 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>; Anderson, Paul M.
`<paulanderson@paulhastings.com>; FlexLogix-Konda-IPR <PH-FlexLogix-Konda-IPR@paulhastings.com>;
`Venkat Konda <venkat@kondatech.com>
`Subject: IPR2020-00260 & -00261 - Petitioner willful violation of USPTO's
`
`Following up on the Board's authorization, Patent Owner filed PO's Motion to Withdraw
`PO's Contingent Motion to Amend on February 26, 2021. In the Petitioner's Opposition
`to Patent Owner's Motion to Withdraw PO's Contingent Motion to Amend filed on
`March 5, 2021 "March 5, 2021 Petitioner's Opposition to PO's Motion to Withdraw", the
`Exhibit 1058 and the corresponding arguments by Petitioner are improper. Patent
`Owner respectfully requests that the Board expunge Exhibit 1058 and all references
`to Exhibit 1058 in the March 5, 2021 Petitioner's Opposition to PO's Motion to Withdraw:
`
`1. Exhibit 1058 - Office Action, U.S. Reissue Application No. 16/202,067 (Aug.
`17, 2020).
`1. The Board instituted IPR2020-00260 & -261 on August 3, 2020. (See,
`Paper 22.) On August 7, 2020, the Board issued a Stay of Reissue
`Application No. 16/202,067 ("067 Reissue Application"). (See, Paper
`24.) On the same day, the USPTO Examiner issued a "letter of
`suspension - Examiner initiated" stating that the Office stayed the '067
`Reissue Application pending IPR trials. However notwithstanding the
`stay was in place, on August 17, 2020, the USPTO Examiner issued the
`Non-final Office Action in the '067 Reissue Application. On the same
`day, i.e., August 17, 2020, Patent Owner called the USPTO Examiner
`and informed her that the Non-final Office Action was issued in spite of
`the stay of the '067 Reissue Application, and inquired if Patent Owner
`had to respond to the Non-final Office Action within 3 months. The
`USPTO Examiner said the Office erroneously issued the Non-final
`Office Action and said she would call back after speaking to her
`Supervisory Examiner. On the same day, she called back the Patent
`Owner and said the Office was immediately withdrawing the Non-final
`Office Action. Accordingly, on the same day, i.e., August 17, 2020 the
`USPTO sua sponte vacated and expunged the Non-final Office Action
`stating: "A review of the record indicates that the non-final Office Action
`was mailed in error. Accordingly, non-final action that was mailed and
`entered into the file on August 17, 2020 is hereby vacated and
`expunged from the record by being designated "closed" and "not public"
`in the Information File Wrapper ("IFW"). The August 17, 2020 non-final
`Office action will form no part of the record and will not be available to
`the public. This decision will be made of record in the
`reexamination file." (See, the attached "Letter Withdrawing/Vacating
`Office Action & Miscellaneous Internal Document" as filed by USPTO
`Examiner in the '067 Reissue Application Docket on August 17, 2020).
`
`

`

`1. Therefore, Petitioner improperly submitted the vacated and
`expunged Non-final Office Action regarding the '067 Reissue
`Application is a willful violation of USPTO's Rules.
`2. Also, the filing of the Non-final Office Action as Exhibit 1058
`in the March 5, 2021 Petitioner's Opposition to PO's Motion to
`Withdraw directly contradicts the arguments by Petitioner earlier
`that the '067 Reissue Application should be stayed to avoid
`inconsistent results by the Office. Because the '067 Reissue
`Application was stayed by the Board, Petitioner should not be
`permitted to refer to the vacated and expunged Non-final Office
`Action.
`3. If the Non-final Office Action had not been vacated/expunged,
`Patent Owner submits that he would have responded to the
`Office Action within three months of the due date, i.e., by
`November 17, 2020 and successfully overcome any and all
`objections/rejections in that Office Action. Accordingly, the Patent
`Owner would be prejudiced if Petitioner’s use of Exhibit 1058,
`which was vacated/expunged by the USPTO Examiner from the
`record of the Office, is allowed to be entered in the record of the
`present IPRs and given any consideration by the Board..
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully requests the Board to expunge Exhibit 1058 and
`the related arguments filed in the March 5, 2021 Petitioner's Opposition to PO's Motion
`to Withdraw.
`
`Petitioner objects to the argumentative nature of Patent Owner’s email to the Board and
`does not agree with the allegations in the email. Exhibit 1058, which is referenced in a
`single sentence in footnote 2 of the Opposition, is directly responsive to Patent Owner’s
`position in the motion to withdraw that the Wong reference is not relevant to claims of
`the ‘523 patent. Whether or not the Examiner in the reissue application withdrew the
`office action (i.e., Ex. 1058) from that proceeding because of the suspension does not
`change the fact that the Examiner recognized the applicability of Wong to the pending
`claims.
`
`Patent owner appreciates the Board’s prompt attention to this matter. Should the Board
`desire to have a call to discuss this issue, Patent Owner and Petitioner can be available
`at the Board’s convenience.
`
`
`Very Respectfully,
`Venkat Konda
`Pro Se Patent Owner
`(408) 472-3273
`
`On Fri, Feb 19, 2021 at 12:56 PM Trials <Trials@uspto.gov> wrote:
`
`Counsel,
`
`

`

`
`
`
`Patent Owner is authorized to file, in each proceeding, a motion to withdraw the motion to amend. The
`motions are due no later than February 26, 2021, and must not exceed 5 pages. Petitioner is authorized to
`file an opposition to each motion. The oppositions are due one week after Patent Owner’s motions are
`filed, and must not exceed five pages.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Regards,
`
`
`
`
`Andrew Kellogg,
`
`Supervisory Paralegal
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board
`
`USPTO
`
`andrew.kellogg@uspto.gov
`
`(571)272-7822
`
`
`
`
`--
`
`NOTICE: This e-mail and any attached documents are CONFIDENTIAL and intended solely for the use of the individual or
`entity to whom they are addressed, and may be a communication privileged by law. If you have received this email in error,
`please notify the sender immediately and delete all copies from your system. Any review, use, retention, dissemination,
`distribution, printing or copying of this e-mail is strictly prohibited. Thank You.
`
`
`
`

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket