`
`
`
`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
`
`Patent 8,269,523 B2
`
`_________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER VENKAT KONDA’S SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE IN
`RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S
`EXHIBITS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`On August 10, 2020, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) Patent Owner Venkat
`
`Konda (“Patent Owner”) submitted to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”)
`
`a Request for Rehearing to reconsider its decision granting institution of inter
`
`partes review IPR2020-00260 (“Petition”, Paper 1) of U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`
`(“the ‘523 patent”) (Paper No. 22). On August 24, 2020, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(b)(1) Petitioner Flex Logix Technologies Inc. (“Petitioner”) submitted
`
`objections to the Exhibits 2025-2027 submitted by Patent Owner with his Request
`
`for Rehearing on the grounds that: (1) the exhibits constitute new evidence, (2)
`
`Patent Owner did not establish good cause, and (3) under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 401 and 402 the exhibits lack relevance. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(b)(2), Patent Owner respectfully submits the following supplemental
`
`evidence in response to Petitioner’s Objections, that Patent Owner established
`
`good cause for the consideration of the Exhibits 2025-2027 submitted with Patent
`
`Owner’s Request for Rehearing.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits to the Board that he established the
`
`following showing of good cause for the acceptance of the Exhibits 2025-2027 by
`
`the Board in Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing:
`
`(1)
`
`Prior to filing the Petition, Petitioner should have known that its only
`
`expert witness in support of the Petition, Dr. Baker, is not qualified in the
`
`“Pertinent Art” of this case, i.e., Dr. Baker is not qualified in the fields of either
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`“interconnection networks”, or “Field Programmable Gate Arrays” or “networks”.
`
`(See, Paper 27 at 2-5)
`
`(2)
`
`Petitioner, its Counsel and Dr. Baker under the Penalty of Perjury
`
`should not have made misrepresentations and errors1. (See, Paper 27 at 2-5)
`
`(3) The Board’s Decision instituting the IPR stated that the Board
`
`accepted Dr. Baker’s testimony, since Petitioner submitted Dr. Baker’s testimony
`
`under the penalty of perjury in the Petition (Paper 22 at 8), but did not accord any
`
`weight to Patent Owner Dr. Konda’s Declaration given under the penalty of
`
`perjury in support of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 8).
`
`Consequently, the Board misapprehended in its Decision that “integrated
`
`networks” is a relevant field, instead of “integrated circuits” and “interconnection
`
`networks” being the “Pertinent Art”. Moreover, there is no such field as
`
`“integrated networks”.
`
`
`1 On August 10, 2020, Patent Owner filed his Motion to Exclude Dr. Baker’s
`
`testimony in the present case in view of the misrepresentations in Dr. Baker’s
`
`Declaration in support of the Petition (Paper 25). Notably, Petitioner did not, and
`
`evidently cannot, redeem itself as it did not submit supplemental evidence pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) by the due date of August 24, 2020.
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`(4) Because the Patent Owner Dr. Konda’s Declaration was not
`
`considered by the Board in the Decision instituting this IPR, Patent Owner is left
`
`with no other option but to submit an independent expert witness’s testimony in
`
`support of Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing, i.e., Dr. Chaudhary’s
`
`Declaration (Exhibit 2025) and accompanying Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Chaudhary
`
`(Exhibit 2026) rectify the Board’s misapprehension in its Decision that “integrated
`
`networks” is a relevant field, whereas “integrated circuits” and implementing
`
`“interconnection networks” is the “Pertinent Art” and there is no such field as
`
`“integrated networks”. Rectifying the Board’s misapprehension establishes good
`
`cause.
`
`(5)
`
`Petitioner filed its Petition with the support of misrepresentations and
`
`errors in Dr. Baker’s testimony under the penalty of perjury, with disregard of the
`
`following (which further constitutes good cause for the Board to admit Exhibits
`
`2025 and 2026):
`
`a. Dr. Baker ignored the straightforward fact that the USPTO Examiner
`
`allowed Claim 1 as amended after the first Office Action in the patent
`
`application No. 12/601,275, which issued as the ‘523 patent, on May
`
`8, 2012, particularly with respect to “said routing network
`
`comprising a plurality of stages y, in each said sub-integrated circuit
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`block, starting from the lowest stage of 1 to the highest stage of y,
`
`where y≧1”.
`
`b. Dr. Baker ignored the straightforward fact that: “A POSITA would
`
`understand that the first stage of a butterfly fat tree network has no
`
`preceding stage, and so no backward connecting links are connected
`
`from the first stage. A POSITA would also understand that the last
`
`stage of a butterfly fat tree network has no succeeding stage, and so no
`
`forward connecting links are connected from the last stage.
`
`Therefore, a POSITA would understand that when there is one stage
`
`in a butterfly fat tree network as illustrated in FIG. 2A1-3 of the
`
`priority applications, it is the first stage as well as the last stage.
`
`Furthermore, the one stage has neither a preceding stage nor a
`
`succeeding stage, and so no forward connecting links are connected
`
`from the stage and no backward connecting links are connected from
`
`the stage. Such an understanding for a POSITA is straight forward.
`
`Accordingly no experimentation is needed to understand, let alone
`
`undue experimentation. (Exhibit 2025 at ¶¶35-37)”.
`
`c. As a consequence, Dr. Baker ignored the straightforward fact that “a
`
`POSITA reviewing the ‘605 PCT and the ‘394 Provisional would
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`have understood that the named inventor was in possession of the
`
`subject matter recited in claim 1, particularly with respect to “said
`
`routing network comprising a plurality of stages y, in each said sub-
`
`integrated circuit block, starting from the lowest stage of 1 to the
`
`highest stage of y, where y≧1” and that the ‘523 patent is entitled to
`
`the benefit of the May 25, 2007 filing date of the ‘394 Provisional
`
`(Exhibit 2025 at ¶¶38-39).”
`
`(6)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(vi) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(c), the
`
`application of the then pending ‘394 Provisional was not available for public
`
`inspection without a power to inspect, i.e., the permission of Patent Owner.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully submitted that the Board’s Decision is in
`
`conflict with the policies and practices of the Office at the time of the ‘394
`
`Provisional and is based on an Erroneous Conclusion of law. Therefore this is
`
`good cause for the acceptance of the Exhibit 2027 in support of Patent Owner’s
`
`Request for Rehearing.
`
`(7)
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Exhibits 2025-2027 are
`
`indeed relevant and material under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402 to the
`
`issues of rectifying the Board’s misapprehensions and Erroneous Conclusion of
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`Law since they are essentially created by Dr. Baker’s misrepresentations and errors
`
`under the penalty of perjury.
`
`(8)
`
`Patent Owner could not have anticipated the Board’s
`
`misapprehensions and Erroneous Conclusion of Law. Therefore, Patent Owner
`
`respectfully requests the Board to admit the Exhibits 2025-2027 on the grounds
`
`establishing good cause discussed above, in support of Patent Owner’s Request for
`
`Rehearing.
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner requests the Board to accept the
`
`supplemental evidence provided and that good cause has been established for the
`
`acceptance of the Exhibits 2025-2027, as they are indeed relevant and material
`
`under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, by the Board in regard to Patent
`
`Owner’s Request for Rehearing and to deny Grounds 1, 2, and 3 in the Petition and
`
`decline to institute inter partes review of the ‘523 Patent.
`
`Date: August 30, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Venkat Konda/
`Venkat Konda
`Pro Se Counsel
`6278 Grand Oak Way
`San Jose, CA 95135
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00260
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 30
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on August 30, 2020, Patent Owner
`
`Venkat Konda’s supplemental evidence in response to Petitioner’s objections to
`
`Patent Owner’s exhibits was served electronically via e-mail in their entirety on the
`
`following counsel of record for Petitioner by email to PH-FlexLogix-Konda-
`
`IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`Lead counsel:
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224),
`Backup counsel:
`1. Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508)
`2. Paul M. Anderson (Reg. No. 39,896)
`3. Quadeer A. Ahmed (Reg. No. 60,835).
`
`
`Service information:
`Paul Hastings LLP,
`875 15th St. N.W.,
`Washington, D.C., 20005,
`Tel.: 202.551.1700,
`Fax: 202.551.1705,
`Email: PH-FlexLogix-Konda-IPR@paulhastings.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`/Venkat Konda/
`Venkat Konda
`Pro Se Counsel
`
`
`Dated: August 30, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificates - Page 1 of 8
`
`
`