`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`VENKAT KONDA,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case PGR2020-00260
`
`Patent 8,269,523 B2
`
`_________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`PO’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II. RELIEF REQUESTED ................................................................................. 1
`
`III. REASONS WHY THE REQUESTED RELIEF SHOULD BE
`GRANTED ..................................................................................................... 2
`
`A. Prior to filing the Petitions, Petitioner should have known that Dr. Baker is not
`qualified as a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”) According to Its Own
`Definition ........................................................................................................................... 2
`
`B. Petitioner Should Not Have Filed Dr. Baker’s Declaration under the Penalty of
`Perjury ............................................................................................................................... 4
`
`C. Dr. Baker Is Not Qualified in the “Pertinent Art” of This Case. ................................. 5
`
`D. Petitioner, Its Counsel and Dr. Baker under the Penalty of Perjury Misrepresented
`That Dr. Baker Is Qualified in the “Pertinent Art” Several More Times ................... 9
`
`E. Dr. Baker Made Several Key Errors in the Petition Due to His Lack of Expertise in
`the “Pertinent Art”. ........................................................................................................ 10
`
`F. Dr. Baker Is the Only Witness in Support of the Petition. .......................................... 15
`
`IV. CONCLUSION ............................................................................................ 15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page ii of 19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`PO’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Flex Logix Technologies Inc. (“Flex Logix” or “Petitioner”) filed its petition
`
`for inter partes review (“IPR”) IPR2020-002601 regarding claims 1, 15-18, 20-22,
`
`32 and 47 (2-7 and 11) (the “Challenged Claims”) of U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`
`(Ex. 1001, “the ‘523 Patent”) on December 16, 2019 (Paper 1 or “Petition”). Patent
`
`Owner Venkat Konda (“Patent Owner”) submitted his Preliminary Response
`
`pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.107 in opposition to the Petition on May 6, 2020 (Paper
`
`8). The Board instituted the IPR2 on August 3, 2020 (Paper 22).
`
`II. RELIEF REQUESTED
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, 37 C.F.R. § 42.11, and 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.51(b)(iii) Patent Owner hereby moves to exclude from evidence exhibits Ex.
`
`1002, Ex. 1003 and all the support presented in the Petition with respect to Ex.
`
`1002 and Ex. 1003 served with the Petition (“Motion”). Patent Owner submits the
`
`declaration of Venkat Konda under the penalty of perjury in support of the Motion.
`
`Venkat Konda holds a Ph.D. degree in Computer Science and engineering and,
`
`
`1 Petitioner concurrently filed two additional petitions for IPR of the ‘523
`
`Patent. Those two petitions are IPR2020-00261 and IPR2020-00262.
`
`2 The Board also instituted IPR2020-00261 but denied IPR2020-00262.
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`PO’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`unlike Dr. Baker, had extensive experience in designing, developing, researching,
`
`and teaching interconnection networks, for over two decades at the time of the
`
`effective priority date of the ‘523 Patent. See Ex. 2024.
`
`III. REASONS WHY THE REQUESTED RELIEF SHOULD BE
`GRANTED
`
`A. Prior to filing the Petitions, Petitioner should have known that Dr. Baker is
`not qualified as a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (“POSITA”)
`According to Its Own Definition
`
` In the Petition, Petitioner submitted that “A person of ordinary skill in the
`
`art (“POSITA”) at the time of the alleged invention of the ‘523 Patent would have
`
`had 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. (Ex. 1002, ¶¶18-
`
`19) Petitioner acknowledges that “[M]ore education can supplement practical
`
`experience and vice versa. (Id.).” (Petition, at 23)
`
`However Petitioner’s witness, Dr. Baker stated “All of my opinions stated
`
`in this declaration are based on my own personal knowledge and professional
`
`judgment. In forming my opinions, I have relied on my knowledge and
`
`experience in designing, developing, researching, and teaching regarding
`
`circuit design and memory devices referenced in this declaration.” (Ex. 1002,
`
`¶3).
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`PO’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Notably, Petitioner’s sole declarant by his own admission has no experience
`
`in networks. Expertise in networks is different from expertise in memory.
`
`Dr. Baker submitted that he has education in Electrical Engineering and
`
`experience in “circuit designs for networks and communications.” See, e.g., Ex.
`
`1002 at ¶¶ 7-9. However, the term “networks” appears only once in Dr. Baker’s
`
`entire CV of 35 pages. Even in that one instance “networks” is used to refer to
`
`Aerohive Networks, where Aerohive Networks is the name of a company (and the
`
`technical subject matter relates to memory, not networks) (See, Exhibit 1003 at
`
`30.)
`
`In comparison, the term “memory” appears more than 150 times in Dr.
`
`Baker’s CV of 35 pages. (This count even excludes the terms DRAM, ROM,
`
`EPROM, EEPROM, etc. where the letter “M” stands for memory in these terms).
`
`Clearly, Dr. Baker’s expertise is in memory. He has absolutely has no
`
`qualifications in “networks”.
`
`Accordingly Dr. Baker misrepresented that he has experience in networks
`
`in his declaration (Ex. 1002) which had no support in Dr. Baker’s CV (Ex. 1003).
`
`Consequently, Patent Owner files this Motion to exclude Petitioner’s exhibits Ex.
`
`1002, Ex. 1003, and all support presented in the Petition based on Ex. 1002 and
`
`Ex. 1003 served with the Petition should be excluded.
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`PO’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`B. Petitioner Should Not Have Filed Dr. Baker’s Declaration under the
`Penalty of Perjury
`
`Patent Owner contends that Dr. Baker is not qualified as a POSITA
`
`according to Petitioner’s own definition, let alone as an expert witness regarding
`
`the field of interconnection networks which is very fundamental to the
`
`Challenged Claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523 in the Petition.
`
`Also, the Board’s decision instituting the IPR stated “Dr. Baker testifies as
`
`to his education and qualifications and provides his curriculum vitae. See, Ex. 1002
`
`¶¶ 3–12; Ex. 1003. At this preliminary stage, we cannot say that Dr. Baker’s
`
`scientific, technical, and other specialized knowledge will not be helpful in
`
`understanding the evidence.” (Paper 22 at 8).
`
`Patent Owner’s contention is not about the sufficiency or the weight of Dr.
`
`Baker’s declaration. Patent Owner’s challenges the admissibility of Dr. Baker’s
`
`declaration because Dr. Baker is simply not even qualified as a POSITA in view of
`
`Petitioner’s own definition of POSITA. Furthermore, as described in the previous
`
`section, Dr. Baker misrepresented that he has purported experience in circuit
`
`designs for networks in his declaration (Ex. 1002) with no support in Dr. Baker’s
`
`CV (Ex. 1003). Accordingly, Patent owner files this motion to exclude exhibits Ex.
`
`1002, Ex. 1003, and all support presented in the Petition based on Ex. 1002 and
`
`Ex. 1003 served with the Petition should be excluded.
`
`Page 4 of 19
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`PO’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`C. Dr. Baker Is Not Qualified in the “Pertinent Art” of This Case.
`
`Petitioner in its Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion to exclude Dr. Baker’s
`
`testimony, in a related PGR Proceeding (See, Ex. 2021), refers to several previous
`
`PTAB cases. To the extent they are relevant in this case, particularly to Dr. Baker’s
`
`lack of qualifications in the “pertinent art,” Patent Owner responds to them as
`
`follows:
`
`(1) Apple Inc. v. Achates Reference Publ’g, Inc., IPR2013-00080, Paper 90
`
`at 48-49 (PTAB June 2, 2014) relates to claim construction of certain terms by the
`
`expert declarant in support of the petition and is therefore not relevant to the
`
`present case.
`
`(2) Laird Techs., Inc. v. GrafTech, IPR2014-00025, Paper 45 at 42 (PTAB
`
`March 25, 2015) relates to the sufficiency and weight of the expert declarant in
`
`support of the petition, and so is not relevant to the present case in which Dr.
`
`Baker’s testimony is inadmissible because he lacks any experience in the field of
`
`the invention and misrepresented his expertise in networks.
`
`(3) With respect to MindGeek, s.a.r.l. v. Skky Inc., IPR2014-01236, Paper 45
`
`at 23 (PTAB January 29, 2016), the Board’s final decision was that with or without
`
`the consideration of the weight of the expert witness’s declaration and exhibits it
`
`did not affect the final outcome and so it is not relevant to the present case.
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`PO’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`(4) With respect to AVX Corp. v. Greatbatch, Ltd., IPR2014-00697, Paper
`
`57 at 26 (PTAB October 21, 2015), the Board’s final decision was that the moving
`
`party did not dispute the declarant was a POSITA, and so it is not relevant to the
`
`present case. Here, Patent Owner contends that Dr. Baker is not even qualified as
`
`a POSITA, and so Patent Owner’s Motion is directed to the admissibility of Dr.
`
`Baker’s testimony because he is unqualified as such in the field of the invention,
`
`namely, networks, according to Petitioner’s own definition.
`
`(5) With respect to CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., IPR2013-00550,
`
`Paper 57 at 11-12 (PTAB March 3, 2015), the moving party disputed that the
`
`declarant was a POSITA in “telecommunications technology for the deaf and hard
`
`of hearing”, whereas it conceded that the declarant was qualified in
`
`“telecommunications technology”. There, the moving party argued to constrict the
`
`“pertinent art,” i.e., the pertinent technology, to a particular subset of individuals
`
`who use the pertinent technology, rather than the pertinent technology itself, and
`
`the Board’s final decision thus noted that the relevant inquiry was as to the
`
`sufficiency and weight of the testimony by the expert declarant, not the
`
`admissibility of the testimony.
`
`In the present case, Patent Owner contends Dr. Baker does not have any
`
`expertise in networks. Accordingly, Dr. Baker’s testimony is inadmissible, and
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`PO’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`exhibits Ex. 1002, Ex. 1003, and all support presented in the Petition based on Ex.
`
`1002 and Ex. 1003 served with the Petition should be excluded.
`
`Patent Owner, in his preliminary response (Paper 8 at 8), submitted that a
`
`POSITA at the time of the invention of the ‘523 Patent would have had a master’s
`
`degree in electrical engineering or a similar field, and at least two to three years of
`
`experience with integrated circuits, interconnection networks and Field
`
`Programmable Gate Arrays. More education can supplement practical
`
`experience and vice versa.
`
`Notably, Petitioner submitted that “Indeed, Dr. Baker has considerable
`
`experience and knowledge in field programmable gate array (“FPGA”) technology
`
`as well as 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).” (See, Exhibit 2021 at 6-7
`
`(emphasis added)). As described below, these are two misrepresentations by
`
`Petitioner, its Counsel and Dr. Baker regarding the field programmable gate array
`
`(“FPGA”) technology as to the field of the invention, namely, interconnection
`
`networks.
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`PO’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Moreover, the term “FPGA” appears four times in Dr. Baker’s CV of 35
`
`pages. Three of those refer to the use of an FPGA and not to implementation or
`
`design of an FPGA or the interconnection network for the FPGA (An analogy is
`
`that a person who can drive an automobile is not a POSITA in the design of an
`
`automobile or the drivetrain to connect to an internal combustion engine). (See, Ex.
`
`1003 at 1, 3 and 17.) The fourth reference in Dr. Baker’s CV of 35 pages is to
`
`implement memory for an FPGA (See, Exhibit 1003 at 2), which is independent of
`
`the implementation of an interconnection network implemented in the FPGA itself.
`
`The term “interconnected networks” or “interconnection networks” appears
`
`ZERO times in Dr. Baker’s CV of 35 pages.
`
`In summary, Dr. Baker has no experience in the implementation of
`
`“networks” or “interconnection networks” for a “Field Programmable Gate Array
`
`(“FPGA”)” which is the “pertinent art” in the current case. Accordingly, Dr.
`
`Baker’s testimony is inadmissible, and, therefore, exhibits Ex. 1002, Ex. 1003 and
`
`all support presented in the Petition based on Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003 served with
`
`the Petition should be excluded.
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`PO’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`D. Petitioner, Its Counsel and Dr. Baker under the Penalty of Perjury
`Misrepresented That Dr. Baker Is Qualified in the “Pertinent Art” Several
`More Times
`
`Petitioner also argued that “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.”
`
`(See, Ex. 2021 at 6). As described below, these are two more blatant
`
`misrepresentations by Petitioner, its Counsel and Dr. Baker under the penalty of
`
`perjury regarding the relevance of “communications systems” and “fiber optics”.
`
`The term “fiber optics” is used three times in Dr. Baker’s CV of 35 pages
`
`(See, Ex. 1003 at 2 twice and at 16). All three of them refer to fiber optic devices
`
`which have got nothing to do with “networks” or “interconnection networks” or
`
`FPGAs.
`
`Moreover, the term “communications” is used five times in Dr. Baker’s CV
`
`of 35 pages (See, Ex. 1003 at 2, at 6 twice, at 23and at 26). None of the five of
`
`them has anything to do with “networks” or “interconnection networks” or FPGAs.
`
`In summary, Dr. Baker misrepresented his purported experience in
`
`“networks” or “interconnection networks” for a “Field Programmable Gate Array
`
`(“FPGA”)” which is the “pertinent art” in the current case. Accordingly, Dr.
`
`Baker’s testimony is inadmissible. As a result, exhibits Ex. 1002, Ex. 1003 and all
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`PO’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`support presented in the Petition based on Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003 served with the
`
`Petition must be excluded.
`
`E. Dr. Baker Made Several Key Errors in the Petition Due to His Lack of
`Expertise in the “Pertinent Art”.
`
`The Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Baker (Ex. 1003) does not list a single
`
`publication, or a course taught at UNLV or a granted patent in the design or
`
`implementation of either networks or interconnection networks or Field
`
`Programmable Gate Arrays.
`
` Due to his lack of educational background or actual experience in the
`
`pertinent art, Dr. Baker made three key errors in his declaration, which are
`
`pivotal since the Board accepted Dr. Baker’s declaration under the penalty of
`
`perjury (Paper 22 at 8). However, Dr. Baker lacks a basic understanding of
`
`hypercube networks which is required for him to qualify as a POSITA having two
`
`to three years of experience with interconnection networks, and thus Dr. Baker
`
`failed to understand that hypercube networks with dimension zero have only one
`
`node (or Block).
`
`Hypercube networks of different dimensions (or degrees) are known and
`
`understood by a person to qualify as a POSITA in the present case. Referring to
`
`Computer Science Notes of the Graduate course “Parallel Computing” at Chapter 2
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`PO’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`- Parallel Architectures and interconnection networks, by Prof. Stewart Weiss at
`
`the City University of New York (Ex. 2006, at 5), Figure 2.5 illustrates hypercube
`
`networks of dimensions 0, 1, 2 and 3. Also, refer to the second and third
`
`paragraphs in Section 2.2.5 discussing the details of the hypercube networks in
`
`Figure 2.5, as follows:
`
`“To start, a single point can be thought of as a 0-cube. Suppose its label is 0.
`
`Now suppose that we replicate this 0-cube, putting the copy at a distance of
`
`one unit away, and connecting the original and the copy by a line segment of
`
`length 1, as shown in Figure 2.5. We will give the duplicate node the label,
`
`1. We extend this idea one step further. We will replicate the 1-cube, putting
`
`the copy parallel to the original at a distance of one unit away in an
`
`orthogonal direction, and connect corresponding nodes in the copy to those
`
`in the original. We will use binary numbers to label the nodes, instead of
`
`decimal. The nodes in the copy will be labeled with the same labels as those
`
`of the original except for one change: the most significant bit in the original
`
`will be changed from 0 to 1 in the copy, as shown in Figure 2.5. Now we
`
`repeat this procedure to create a 3-cube: we replicate the 2-cube, putting the
`
`copy parallel to the original at a distance of 1 unit away in the orthogonal
`
`direction, connect nodes in the copy to the corresponding nodes in the
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`PO’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`original, and relabel all nodes by adding another significant bit, 0 in the
`
`original and 1 in the copy.”
`
`See Ex. 2006, at 5.
`
`Clearly, a hypercube network of dimension 0 has only one node and no
`
`wires connected to any other nodes as there is only one node. Unlike Dr. Baker, a
`
`POSITA with background and experience in interconnection networks,
`
`specifically, in hypercube networks, would understand the amendment to claim 1
`
`during the prosecution of the application for the ‘523 Patent by the Examiner.
`
`Furthermore, the ‘523 Patent states that “Finally applicant notes that in each
`
`quadrant or half the blocks are arranged as a general binary hypercube. Recursively
`
`in larger multi-stage network
`
` where N1 = N2 > 32, the layout
`
`in this embodiment in accordance with the current invention, will be such that the
`
`super-quadrants will also be arranged in d-ary hypercube manner. (In the
`
`embodiment of the layout 100C of FIG. 1C, it is binary hypercube manner since d
`
`= 2, in the network
`
` 100B of FIG. 1B).” (Ex. 1001, at 48, 14:1-
`
`9). Unlike Dr. Baker, a POSITA would understand that the 2D-layouts disclosed
`
`for multi-stage networks in the ‘523 Patent are also applicable for a hypercube
`
`network topology scheme of dimension zero with only one block comprising one
`
`
`
`Page 12 of 19
`
`
`V
`
`fold
`
`mlink
`
`(
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` , , ), sdNN
`1
`2
`
`V
`
`fold
`
`mlink
`
`(
`
`
`
`
`
` , , ), sdNN
`1
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`PO’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`stage, particularly as shown in FIG. 2A3 of the ‘523 Patent. However, since Dr.
`
`Baker has no experience in interconnection networks he stated that he failed to
`
`understand a topology with only one stage in the multi-stage network. (Ex. 1002
`
`¶¶ 47-52). Instead, if Dr. Baker actually understood the difference between a
`
`multi-stage network arranged in a hypercube topology of 2D-layout, it would
`
`have been clear to him. This is the first error by Dr. Baker in his declaration.
`
`Additionally, claim 8 of the ‘523 Patent is understood by a POSITA that
`
`when y = 1, the length of the horizontal shuffle exchange links in the highest stage
`
`(clearly since there is only one stage in one block, the lowest stage and highest
`
`stage are the same) is equal to half the size of the horizontal size of said two
`
`dimensional grid of sub-integrated circuit blocks (and since the size of horizontal
`
`shuffle exchange links is zero, there are no horizontal shuffle exchange links) and
`
`the length of the vertical shuffle exchange links in the highest stage (since there is
`
`only one stage in one block, the lowest stage and highest stage are the same) is
`
`equal to half the size of the vertical size of said two dimensional grid of sub-
`
`integrated circuit blocks (and since the size of vertical shuffle exchange links is
`
`zero, there are no vertical shuffle exchange links). Dr. Baker stated that he failed to
`
`understand Claim 8 as well. (Ex. 1002 ¶ 59) However, claim 8 depends from claim
`
`
`
`Page 13 of 19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`PO’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`1 and further clarifies the meaning of one stage as shown in FIG. 2A3 of the ‘523
`
`Patent. This is Dr. Baker’s second error in his declaration.
`
`It is apparent to a POSITA that there is only one stage in the 2D-layout of a
`
`multi-stage network disclosed in the ‘523 Patent when there is only one block in
`
`the network with N = 2 as illustrated in FIG. 2A3. A POSITA would clearly
`
`understand that in electrical engineering terms or mathematically it is a
`
`fundamental case to describe the mathematical rigor or boundary conditions. Dr.
`
`Baker’s statement that “undue” experimentation would be needed for a POSITA to
`
`understand that when there is one stage there is only one block in a fundamental
`
`case is simply wrong (Ex. 1002 ¶ 62). This is Dr. Baker’s third error in his
`
`declaration.
`
`In summary, because of the errors that he made in his declaration, Dr. Baker
`
`lacks the necessary education and/or experience in the pertinent art to qualify as a
`
`i.e., the field of “networks” or “interconnection networks” for a Field
`
`Programmable Gate Array (“FPGA”), and the three errors committed by Dr. Baker
`
`were pivotal for the institution of this IPR by the Board.
`
`Accordingly Patent owner files this motion to exclude exhibits Ex. 1002, Ex.
`
`1003 and all support presented in the Petition based on Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`PO’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`served with the Petition because Dr. Baker lacks qualification in the pertinent art
`
`and his testimony is therefore inadmissible.
`
`F. Dr. Baker Is the Only Witness in Support of the Petition.
`
`According to his Curriculum Vitae, Dr. Baker has been an expert witness in
`
`more than 85 cases, but none of them are in the “pertinent art” of “networks” or
`
`“interconnection networks” or “Field Programmable Gate Array (“FPGA”)”
`
`technology. Petitioner, its Counsel and Dr. Baker disingenuously submitted his
`
`declaration in the Petition with misrepresentations of his qualifications as a
`
`POSITA and several errors. Notably, Dr. Baker is the only declarant in support of
`
`the Petition. Exhibits Ex. 1002, Ex. 1003 and all support presented in the Petition
`
`based on Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003 served with the Petition should be excluded due to
`
`the inadmissibility of Dr. Baker’s testimony because he does not qualify in the
`
`pertinent art.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`In conclusion, Patent Owner respectfully requests the Board to grant this
`
`Motion to exclude, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, 37 C.F.R. § 42.11, and 37 C.F.R.
`
`§ 42.51(b)(iii). For the foregoing reasons, Ex. 1002, Ex. 1003 and all the support
`
`presented in the Petition based on Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003 should be excluded.
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`PO’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`Date: August 10, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/Venkat Konda/
`Venkat Konda
`Pro Se Counsel
`6278 Grand Oak Way
`San Jose, CA 95135
`
`
`
`Page 16 of 19
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 25
`PO’s Motion to Exclude Evidence
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and consent of the Petitioner, I certify that
`
`on August 10, 2020, a copy of Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude Evidence was
`
`served on counsel of record for Petitioner by email to PH-FlexLogix-Konda-
`
`IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`Dated: August 10, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Venkat Konda/
`Venkat Konda
`Pro Se Counsel
`
`Certificates - Page 1 of 19
`
`
`
`
`