`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________________
`
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`Petitioner
`
`v.
`
`
`KONDA TECHNOLOGIES INC.
`Patent Owner
`
`____________________
`
`
`Case PGR2019-00037
`Patent 10,003,553
`____________________
`
`OPPOSITION TO PATENT OWNER’S
`MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`
`
`Page 1 of 11 IPR2020-00260
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1
`I.
`II. ARGUMENT ................................................................................................... 1
`Patent Owner Failed to Timely Object to Dr. Baker’s Declaration
`A.
`Within the Timeframe Allowed by the Board’s Rules ......................... 2
`The Motion Is Directed to the Sufficiency of the Evidence and Not to
`Its Admissibility .................................................................................... 4
`C. Dr. Baker Is More Than Qualified to Provide Opinions from the
`Perspective of a PHOSITA Here ........................................................... 6
`III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................ 8
`
`
`B.
`
`Page 2 of 11 IPR2020-00260
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2021
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00037
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner’s admissibility challenge to the Declaration of Dr. R. Jacob
`
`Baker (Ex. 1002) and Dr. Baker’s CV (Ex. 1003) is procedurally improper and lacks
`
`merit. Patent Owner failed to timely object to the evidence it references in its Motion
`
`to Exclude (Paper 27, “Motion”), which is titled “Patent Owner’s Objections to
`
`Evidence Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64” and deprived Petitioner of the ability to
`
`address Patent Owner’s challenges with, for example, supplemental evidence. The
`
`Motion also fails on the merits because it is directed to the sufficiency of the
`
`evidence as opposed to its admissibility, as it relates to Dr. Baker’s credibility. In
`
`any event, the motion overlooks Dr. Baker’s relevant qualifications and experience.
`
`It should be summarily denied.1
`
`II. ARGUMENT
`
`The Board should deny the Motion for three independent reasons. First, the
`
`Motion is procedurally improper because Patent Owner failed to timely object to the
`
`evidence within the timeframe mandated by the Board’s rules. Second, the Motion
`
`is directed to the sufficiency of the evidence, which cannot be addressed with a
`
`
`1 Petitioner raised the impropriety of the motion on a conference call with the Board
`
`on May, 27, 2020. The Board indicated that Petitioner should just address the motion
`
`through its opposition. See Ex. 1043 at 27:25-28:11.
`
`1
`
`Page 3 of 11 IPR2020-00260
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2021
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00037
`Patent 10,003,553
`motion to exclude. Finally, even if the Board considers the merits of Patent Owner’s
`
`attacks, Dr. Baker’s qualifications and experience demonstrate that he is more than
`
`qualified to provide opinions in this proceeding from the perspective of a person
`
`having ordinary skill in the art (“PHOSITA”).
`
`A. Patent Owner Failed to Timely Object to Dr. Baker’s
`Declaration Within the Timeframe Allowed by the Board’s Rules
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion should be denied because Patent Owner failed to
`
`timely object to Dr. Baker’s Declaration within the timeframe allowed by the
`
`Board’s rules.2 See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1) (requiring that “[a]ny objection to
`
`evidence submitted during a preliminary proceeding must be filed within ten
`
`business days of the institution of the trial.”) (emphasis added). Indeed, in order
`
`to preserve a non-moving party’s right to serve supplemental evidence, the Board
`
`requires parties to strictly comply with the timeliness requirement under
`
`§ 42.64(b)(1). See, e.g., Apple Inc. v. Achates Reference Publ’g, Inc., IPR2013-
`
`
`2 Patent Owner’s Motion also references Exhibit 1003, Dr. Baker’s CV, but does not
`
`explain why the CV is inadmissible. See generally Motion. Thus, any attempt to
`
`exclude Exhibit 1003 should be rejected. Moreover, Petitioner’s arguments herein
`
`regarding Dr. Baker’s Declaration (Ex. 1002) are equally applicable to the CV (Ex.
`
`1003), as there was no timely objection to the CV, and the Motion relates to the
`
`evidence’s sufficiency.
`
`2
`
`Page 4 of 11 IPR2020-00260
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2021
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00037
`Patent 10,003,553
`00080, Paper 90 at 48-49 (PTAB June 2, 2014) (denying patent owner’s motion to
`
`exclude expert testimony because patent owner failed to object to evidence sought
`
`to be excluded within ten business days of the institution of trial under
`
`§ 42.64(b)(1)).
`
`Here, Dr. Baker’s Declaration was served with the petition on March 18, 2019.
`
`The Board, after considering the petition and Patent Owner’s preliminary response,
`
`instituted trial on September 19, 2019. Paper 13. Under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1),
`
`Patent Owner was required to file its objections to the evidence by October 3, 2019,
`
`i.e., “within ten business days of the institution of the trial.” Patent Owner never did
`
`so.3
`
`During a conference call with the Board, Patent Owner admitted that it
`
`“wasn’t aware” of the objection deadlines under the Board’s rules and was “learning
`
`this,” Ex. 1043 at 12-13, but ignorance of the Board’s rules is no excuse. And the
`
`Board’s rules require that the Motion itself “must identify the objections in the
`
`record in order and must explain the objections.” See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c). Having
`
`
`3 Patent Owner’s failure to timely object to the evidence also deprived Petitioner any
`
`opportunity to supplement the evidence (to the extent Petitioner deemed doing so an
`
`appropriate course of action). See 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2).
`
`3
`
`Page 5 of 11 IPR2020-00260
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2021
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00037
`Patent 10,003,553
`never previously objected to the evidence, the Motion could not have and does not
`
`identify the objections in the record, let alone explain them. Motion at 3-5.
`
`Therefore, the Motion is procedurally improper under the plain language of
`
`§§ 42.64(b)(1) and 42.64(c), as there was no timely objection to the evidence and
`
`the Motion does not (as it could not) identify the objections in the record.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner’s belated attempt to exclude evidence, more than six
`
`months after the objections were due, should be rejected. The motion should be
`
`denied for this reason alone.
`
`B. The Motion Is Directed to the Sufficiency
`of the Evidence and Not to Its Admissibility
`
`The Motion should be denied also because the Motion is directed to the
`
`sufficiency of evidence and not to the admissibility of evidence. During post-grant
`
`proceedings, “[a] motion to exclude . . . may not be used to challenge the sufficiency
`
`of the evidence to prove a particular fact” and “is not a vehicle for addressing the
`
`weight to be given evidence.” See Patent Trial and Appeal Board Consolidated Trial
`
`Practice Guide (November 2019) (“TPG”) at 79; see also Laird Techs., Inc. v.
`
`GrafTech, IPR2014-00025, Paper 45 at 42 (PTAB March 25, 2015) (denying a
`
`motion to exclude because “[a] motion to exclude . . . is not an appropriate
`
`mechanism for challenging the sufficiency of evidence or the proper weight that
`
`should be afforded an argument.”). Indeed, the Board routinely denies motions to
`
`4
`
`Page 6 of 11 IPR2020-00260
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2021
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00037
`Patent 10,003,553
`exclude challenging an expert testimony based on the theory that the expert is not
`
`qualified because such motions “address the weight to be given the testimony, as
`
`opposed to its admissibility.” See MindGeek, s.a.r.l. v. Skky Inc., IPR2014-01236,
`
`Paper 45 at 23 (PTAB January 29, 2016) (denying motion to exclude expert
`
`testimony on the basis of the expert’s qualification and instead “assign[ing] the
`
`weight to which [the Board] believe [the testimony of the expert] is entitled”); see
`
`also AVX Corp. v. Greatbatch, Ltd., IPR2014-00697, Paper 57 at 26 (PTAB October
`
`21, 2015) (similar), CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., IPR2013-00550, Paper 57 at
`
`11-12 (PTAB March 3, 2015) (similar).
`
`Here, Patent Owner attempts to exclude Dr. Baker’s Declaration alleging that
`
`Dr. Baker is unqualified as an expert. See Motion at 4; see also Ex. 1043 at 10-11.
`
`Such a challenge is directed to the sufficiency of the challenged evidence, as opposed
`
`to its admissibility because it essentially addresses the credibility of Dr. Baker’
`
`testimony (i.e., the weight to be given to the testimony by the Board). See
`
`MindGeek, Paper 45 at 23. In MindGeek, the moving party similarly made an
`
`argument that Dr. Almeroth only had expertise in computer science and therefore is
`
`not qualified in wireless device hardware and architecture. MindGeek, Paper 35 at
`
`2-4 (PTAB August 12, 2015). However, the Board rejected this argument and
`
`denied the motion, finding that “[m]ost of [p]etitioner’s arguments . . . appear to
`
`address the weight to be given the testimony, as opposed to its admissibility.”
`
`5
`
`Page 7 of 11 IPR2020-00260
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2021
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00037
`Patent 10,003,553
`MindGeek, Paper 45 at 23. The Board should similarly deny the Motion here.4
`
`C. Dr. Baker Is More Than Qualified to Provide
`Opinions from the Perspective of a PHOSITA Here
`
`Finally, even if the Board considers the merits of the motion, it should be
`
`denied for another independent reason. Patent Owner essentially attacks Dr. Baker’s
`
`qualifications. Motion at 3-4; see also Ex. 1043 at 10-11. In doing so, Patent Owner
`
`identifies only one paragraph of Dr. Baker’s declaration and mischaracterizes that
`
`paragraph as being the sole statement of Dr. Baker regarding his experience. Motion
`
`at 3-4. Patent Owner ignores other parts of the Declaration which describe, for
`
`example, Dr. Baker’s education in Electrical Engineering and experience in “circuit
`
`designs for networks and communications” and “communications systems, and fiber
`
`optics.” See e.g., Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 7-9. Indeed, Dr. Baker has considerable experience
`
`and knowledge in field programmable gate array (“FPGA”) technology as well as
`
`
`4 Additionally, Patent Owner could have, but did not, cross-examine Dr. Baker
`
`regarding his credentials and experience. Ex. 1043 at 17:4-20 (J. Boucher inquiring
`
`Patent Owner “why are these not issues directed more to the sufficiency of Dr.
`
`Baker's testimony and its persuasiveness that you could explore on cross-
`
`examination?”); see also Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 596
`
`(1993) (noting that “[v]igorous cross-examination,” amongst other things, is an
`
`appropriate means for challenging expert testimony).
`
`6
`
`Page 8 of 11 IPR2020-00260
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2021
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00037
`Patent 10,003,553
`interconnected networks. See Ex. 1002 at ¶¶ 7, 9, 14; see generally Ex. 1003. For
`
`instance, Dr. Baker authored and coauthored numerous papers in the area of FPGAs
`
`(Ex. 1002 at ¶9; Ex. 1003 at 17) and has industrial experience with memory modules
`
`and controllers implemented with FPGAs and application specific integrated circuits
`
`(“ASICs”) (Ex. 1003 at 3).
`
`Based on his extensive education and experience, Dr. Baker is more than
`
`qualified to testify from a perspective of PHOSITA, who was defined in the petition
`
`as someone having “a master’s degree in electrical engineering or a similar field,
`
`and at least two to three years of experience with integrated circuits and networks.”
`
`Pet. at 6 (citing Ex. 1002, ¶18.) The petition further noted that more education can
`
`supplement practical experience and vice versa. Id. In instituting trial, the Board
`
`adopted this level of skill and noted that it was unopposed. Patent Owner has not
`
`challenged this skill level in this proceeding.
`
`In any event, even if Patent Owner identifies the skill level differently at this
`
`stage, which it should not be allowed to do, the law does not require “a complete
`
`overlap between the witness’s technical qualifications and the problem confronting
`
`the inventor or the field of endeavor for a witness to qualify as an expert.”
`
`CaptionCall at 11; see also TPG at 34. Dr. Baker is at least “qualified in the pertinent
`
`art” even if it is defined somewhat differently from how Petitioner defined it in the
`
`petition (Ex. 1002 at ¶¶2, 7-9). See CaptionCall at 11-12 (PTAB Mar. 3, 2015)
`
`7
`
`Page 9 of 11 IPR2020-00260
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2021
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00037
`Patent 10,003,553
`(citing SEB S.A. v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 594 F.3d 1360, 1372-73 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2010)). For this additional reason, the Board should deny the Motion.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`Petitioner respectfully requests that the Board deny Patent Owner’s Motion.
`
`Dated: July 30, 2020
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`By: /Naveen Modi/
` Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`8
`
`Page 10 of 11 IPR2020-00260
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2021
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00037
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on July 30, 2020, I caused a true and correct copy of the
`
`foregoing Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence to
`
`be served via electronic mail to:
`
`Venkat Konda (venkat@kondatech.com)
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`By: /Naveen Modi/
` Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224)
` Counsel for Petitioner
`
`
`
`
`Dated: July 30, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 11 IPR2020-00260
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2021
`
`