`
`
`Venkat Konda, Ph.D.
`6278 Grand Oak Way
`San Jose, CA 95135
`Telephone: (408) 472-3273
`Email: vkonda@gmail.com
`
`Plaintiff pro se
`
`
`
`Electronically Filed
`by Superior Court of CA,
`County of Santa Clara,
`on 3/22/2021 11:34 PM
`Reviewed By: F. Miller
`Case #19CV345846
`Envelope: 6087286
`
`IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
`
`
`
`
`VENKAT KONDA, Ph.D., an individual,
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`DEJAN MARKOVIC, Ph.D., an individual;
`)
`1. Unfair Business Practices
`CHENG C. WANG, Ph.D., an individual;
`)
`2. Unfair Competition - Passing off
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
`)
`3. Fraud: Intentional
`)
`Delaware Corporation; THE REGENTS
`Misrepresentation
`)
`OF THE UNIVERSITY OF
`)
`4. Fraud: Concealment
`CALIFORNIA; GEOFFREY TATE, an
`)
`5. Conversion
`individual; PIERRE LAMOND, an
`)
`6. Breach of Confidential Relationship
`individual; PETER HEBERT, an
`)
`7. Intentional Interference With
`)
`individual; LESLIE M. LACKMAN, Ph.D.,
`Prospective Economic Relations
`)
`an individual; and DOES 1-20, inclusive,
`)
`8. Ongoing Conspiracy
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No. 19CV345846
`
`Unlimited Civil Case
`
`PLAINTIFF’S FOURTH AMENDED
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`
`
`Department: 2
`Before: Honorable Drew C. Takaichi
`
`Date Complaint Filed: April 3, 2019
`Trial Date: None
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Venkat Konda, Ph.D. (hereinafter referred to as “Dr. Konda” or “Plaintiff”)
`
`alleges as follows in this Fourth Amended Complaint:
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint
`-1-
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 483 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2030
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`1. This case involves a surreptitious scheme by a professor, Dejan Markovic, Ph.D.
`
`(hereinafter referred to as “Defendant Markovic” or “Markovic”) who recruited and conspired
`
`with one of the graduate students he advised, Cheng C. Wang, Ph.D. (hereinafter referred to as
`
`“Defendant Wang” or “Wang”), (hereinafter collectively referred to as “Defendants Markovic
`
`and Wang”), at the University of California Los Angeles (hereinafter referred to as “UCLA”)
`
`which is part of the University of California system, to falsely claim innovation of certain
`
`technology by covertly implementing Dr. Konda’s innovations, publishing technical papers as if
`
`it were their technology, and receiving illicit financial benefits, by passing off Dr. Konda’s
`
`innovations pilfered from Dr. Konda and his Silicon Valley company, Konda Technologies, Inc.
`
`10
`
`(hereinafter referred to as “Konda Tech”) as their own. Through deception and manipulation
`
`11
`
`(i.e., constantly trolling for and obtaining confidential business know-how, and product know-
`
`12
`
`how for years starting in 2009 – 2014 by blatantly lying and brazenly concealing their misdeeds
`
`13
`
`under the cloak of legitimacy afforded by their association with UCLA, which has knowingly
`
`14
`
`benefitted from illicitly commercializing Dr. Konda’s innovations. Defendants Markovic and
`
`15
`
`Wang used Dr. Konda’s confidential information disclosed by Dr. Konda to Defendant Markovic
`
`16
`
`in confidence and additional documents including the text and diagrams published in Dr.
`
`17
`
`Konda’s published patent applications and patents without authorization or attribution to launch
`
`18
`
`commercial products without the knowledge of Dr. Konda, through a now-dissolved California
`
`19
`
`Corporation Hierlogix, Inc. formed by Defendants Markovic and Wang with funding by UCLA’s
`
`20
`
`Institute for Technology Advancement (hereinafter referred to as “UCLA/ITA”) and its
`
`21
`
`successor Defendant Flex Logix Technologies, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Flex Logix”).
`
`22
`
`2. Dr. Konda’s confidential business information and practices relates to Field
`
`23
`
`Programmable Gate Arrays (hereinafter referred to as “FPGAs”). FPGAs are semiconductor
`
`24
`
`devices that comprise a matrix of configurable logic blocks (CLBs) having one or more Lookup
`
`25
`
`Tables connected via a programmable interconnection network. After being fabricated, FPGAs
`
`26
`
`can be reprogrammed for a desired application or functionality requirements. They are used in
`
`27
`
`many different applications from simple devices such as calculators to sophisticated artificial
`
`28
`
`intelligence (AI) systems that require high-speed logic operations. FPGAs can perform these
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint
`-2-
`
`Page 2 of 483 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2030
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`operations faster than a software application running on a computer’s central processing unit
`
`(CPU).
`
`3. Defendant Markovic was introduced to Dr. Konda by Flavio Bonomi, Ph.D. (hereinafter
`
`referred to as “Dr. Bonomi”), who was a Cisco Fellow, Vice President and the Head of the
`
`Advanced Architecture and Research Organization at Cisco Systems, Inc. in San Jose, California
`
`(hereinafter referred to as “Cisco”) in 2009. After funding was orally offered by the Cisco Angel
`
`Network (based on Dr. Konda’s goodwill in the industry), but later rescinded, Defendant
`
`Markovic reached out to Dr. Konda to troll for information beginning in or around March, 2009
`
`and continuing through at least March, 2014.
`
`10
`
`4. Unbeknownst to Dr. Konda, Defendant Markovic seized the opportunity by conspiring
`
`11
`
`with Defendant Wang, then a Ph.D. candidate studying under Markovic and looking for a Ph.D.
`
`12
`
`Dissertation topic, to immediately begin implementing integrated circuit devices based on the
`
`13
`
`disclosures in the 2008 Konda Publications without authorization from Dr. Konda or Konda
`
`14
`
`Tech.
`
`15
`
`5. On the pretense of obtaining funding for Konda Tech, Defendant Markovic arranged for a
`
`16
`
`presentation by Dr. Konda to UCLA/ITA including Defendant Leslie M. Lackman, Ph.D.
`
`17
`
`(hereinafter referred to as “Dr. Lackman”) on October 12, 2009, obtaining proprietary and
`
`18
`
`confidential materials from Dr. Konda five days prior to the presentation in confidence.
`
`19
`
`However, funding was not forthcoming because, as Defendant Markovic knew beforehand but
`
`20
`
`concealed from Dr. Konda, the prerequisite nexus of a relationship between UCLA and Dr.
`
`21
`
`Konda or Konda Tech did not exist. Nevertheless, within less than two months after the
`
`22
`
`presentation to UCLA/ITA, in December, 2009, unbeknownst to Dr. Konda at that time,
`
`23
`
`Defendant Wang covertly implemented and fabricated FPGA devices comprising CLBs and
`
`24
`
`interconnect using published information through the graduate program at UCLA under the
`
`25
`
`guidance of Defendant Markovic without Plaintiff’s authorization.
`
`26
`
`6. Finding a research topic for a doctoral dissertation is the single most challenging task for
`
`27
`
`a Ph.D. student, such as Defendant Wang. A Ph.D. advisor’s first task is to let his student know
`
`28
`
`how to carefully conceive a novel topic. It is very common for a Ph.D. student to propose a
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint
`-3-
`
`Page 3 of 483 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2030
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`concept and later learn that it was already pursued by someone earlier. And, the Ph.D. student
`
`must then find another research topic. However, here, Defendant Markovic in concert with
`
`Defendant Wang knowingly, brazenly chose to implement Dr. Konda’s innovations as his topic.
`
`As a result, Defendant Wang’s Ph.D. dissertation is essentially a plagiarization of Dr. Konda’s
`
`published patent applications and patents and additional confidential information obtained by
`
`Defendant Markovic from Dr. Konda through a confidential relationship.
`
`7. Defendants Markovic and Wang fraudulently based Defendant Wang’s Ph.D. dissertation
`
`on Dr. Konda’s innovations and then proceeded to commercialize their surreptitious work as a
`
`business opportunity to make financial gains, refusing to acknowledge the ownership of Dr.
`
`10
`
`Konda, and in the process damaging Konda Tech and Dr. Konda.
`
`11
`
`8. Without disclosing that Defendants Markovic and Wang had implemented FPGA devices
`
`12
`
`based on Dr. Konda’s publications, Markovic eight to nine months after Dr. Konda’s confidential
`
`13
`
`presentation to UCLA/ITA including Dr. Lackman, contacted Dr. Konda to solicit him to submit
`
`14
`
`a confidential joint proposal to DARPA. When Dr. Konda learned that covert work had been
`
`15
`
`carried out without his authorization at UCLA as described in the draft confidential DARPA
`
`16
`
`proposal prepared by Defendant Markovic, Dr. Konda told Markovic that Markovic was not
`
`17
`
`authorized to have done that work and to cease any further work at UCLA. However, again on
`
`18
`
`the pretense of obtaining funding for Konda Tech, but in actuality to obtain funding for
`
`19
`
`Markovic’s and Wang’s development of software tools to program FPGA devices they had
`
`20
`
`covertly implemented, Dr. Konda agreed to the submission of the confidential DARPA proposal
`
`21
`
`with Dr. Konda as the Principal Investigator, because Defendant Markovic promised Dr. Konda
`
`22
`
`that if the confidential DARPA proposal were to be granted, Markovic would obtain a license to
`
`23
`
`carry on any further work at UCLA; otherwise Markovic promised that he would cease any
`
`24
`
`further implementation of Dr. Konda’s innovations at UCLA as an academic project only.
`
`25
`
`9. Approximately five weeks later while the first confidential DARPA proposal was still
`
`26
`
`pending, Defendant Markovic then solicited Dr. Konda to join in submitting a second
`
`27
`
`confidential DARPA proposal, but with UCLA as the Principal Investigator. Defendant
`
`28
`
`Markovic again promised Dr. Konda that if the second confidential DARPA proposal were to be
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint
`-4-
`
`Page 4 of 483 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2030
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`granted, he would agree to a license to carry out any further work at UCLA, and otherwise
`
`Markovic would cease all further implementation of Dr. Konda’s innovations at UCLA as an
`
`academic project only.
`
`10. Both of the confidential DARPA proposals were rejected in late 2010. At that point, Dr.
`
`Konda believed that all of the FPGA device work incorporating Dr. Konda’s patent applications
`
`and patents and confidential information disclosed by Dr. Konda in connection with the
`
`confidential DARPA proposals at UCLA had ceased, as an academic project only, based on the
`
`prior representations of Defendant Markovic.
`
`11. At or around that time, Dr. Konda contacted Defendant Markovic to inform him in
`
`10
`
`confidence that Konda Tech had licensed a commercial FPGA supplier, QuickLogic Corporation
`
`11
`
`(hereinafter referred to as “QuickLogic”), with whom Dr. Konda had worked between late
`
`12
`
`September, 2010 and mid-January, 2011 to prove the value of Dr. Konda’s innovations.
`
`13
`
`Defendant Markovic seized that opportunity to troll for confidential information regarding Dr.
`
`14
`
`Konda’s work with QuickLogic. Dr. Konda informed Defendant Markovic in confidence
`
`15
`
`regarding the licensee information and other confidential business information. Defendant
`
`16
`
`Markovic was keenly interested in this information and further inquired what other FPGA
`
`17
`
`suppliers Dr. Konda had contacted. At that time Markovic misrepresented to Dr. Konda that he
`
`18
`
`and his students had stopped implementing Dr. Konda’s innovations.
`
`19
`
`12. Unbeknownst to Dr. Konda, Defendants Markovic and Wang concealed that they had
`
`20
`
`formed Hierlogix Inc. (“Hierlogix”) on January 4, 2011 with its principal place of business at
`
`21
`
`Defendant Wang’s private residence. Hence, Defendants Markovic and Wang stopped the
`
`22
`
`academic project of implementing the disclosures in the 2008 Konda Publications using the
`
`23
`
`confidential and proprietary implementation details and technical know-how which Dr. Konda
`
`24
`
`had disclosed to Defendant Markovic in confidence to prepare the Two Confidential DARPA
`
`25
`
`Proposals which Dr. Konda had previously disclosed to Defendant Markovic in confidence and
`
`26
`
`brazenly, but covertly started commercializing the results of their purported academic work
`
`27
`
`without a license or authorization from Dr. Konda.
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint
`-5-
`
`Page 5 of 483 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2030
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`13. Unbeknownst to Dr. Konda, Defendants Markovic and Wang raised funding from
`
`UCLA/ITA for Hierlogix. Hierlogix is substantially based on confidential business knowledge
`
`and practices based on the confidential and propriety presentation given by Dr. Konda to
`
`UCLA/ITA on October 12, 2009 and the confidential DARPA proposals.
`
`14. Unbeknownst to Dr. Konda at that time, Defendants Markovic and Wang also concealed
`
`that they had submitted a paper based on Dr. Konda’s innovations in January 2011 to the VLSI
`
`Symposium without any authorization by or attribution to Dr. Konda. More particularly, the
`
`paper was based on Konda Tech’s 2D BFT layouts which are the cornerstone for achieving area,
`
`power, and performance improvements in FPGAs. The paper was presented by Defendants
`
`10
`
`Markovic and Wang as their own innovation at the VLSI Symposium in June 2011.
`
`11
`
`15. Also, unbeknownst to Dr. Konda, Defendant Wang was completing his Ph.D. program
`
`12
`
`under the guidance of Defendant Markovic and submitted his dissertation based on the covert
`
`13
`
`implementation of Dr. Konda’s innovations without attribution to Dr. Konda, yet Wang was
`
`14
`
`awarded his Ph.D. in June 2013 and recognized for having submitted a distinguished Ph.D.
`
`15
`
`dissertation under the supervision of Defendant Markovic.
`
`16
`
`16. In April 2013, Defendant Markovic invited Dr. Konda by email to meet him at Stanford
`
`17
`
`University while Markovic represented that he was a “Visiting Professor.” When they met, Dr.
`
`18
`
`Konda inquired to confirm whether Defendant Markovic and his students had indeed
`
`19
`
`discontinued implementing Dr. Konda’s innovations as part of the academic work at UCLA.
`
`20
`
`Defendant Markovic falsely replied “yes.” During the conversation, Defendant Markovic also
`
`21
`
`asked Dr. Konda to inform him in confidence of the names of customers Dr. Konda was
`
`22
`
`currently working with. Thus, Defendant Markovic repeatedly trolled for Dr. Konda’s
`
`23
`
`confidential business knowledge and practices which Dr. Konda disclosed in confidence
`
`24
`
`believing that Defendant Markovic was helping to find funding and/or business opportunities for
`
`25
`
`Dr. Konda, while all the time Markovic was misrepresenting and concealing facts as to
`
`26
`
`Defendants Markovic’s and Wang’s activities.
`
`27
`
`17. In January, 2014, while Defendant Markovic represented himself to be a “Visiting
`
`28
`
`Professor” at Stanford University, Dr. Konda and Defendants Markovic and Wang were invited
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint
`-6-
`
`Page 6 of 483 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2030
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`to a meeting with Dr. Bonomi at his residence. Dr. Bonomi had recently founded a startup
`
`company, Nebliolo Technologies, Inc. (hereinafter referred to as “Nebliolo”) and was interested
`
`in obtaining a supplier of FPGAs based on Dr. Konda’s innovations. He invited Defendants
`
`Markovic and Wang whom he understood had founded a semiconductor design company that he
`
`thought might be able to develop FPGAs based on Dr. Konda’s innovations in an embedded
`
`FPGA block to supply to Nebliolo. At that meeting, Defendant Markovic mentioned that he was
`
`in the process of raising funding for a startup company. When Dr. Konda queried Markovic if the
`
`startup was in the area of wireless and digital signal processors (DSPs), Defendant Markovic said
`
`“yes,” which was an intentional misrepresentation. Defendant Markovic concealed the facts that
`
`10
`
`Hierlogix had been founded by Markovic and Wang three years earlier to commercialize FPGAs
`
`11
`
`and that the technological focus of the startup for which he was seeking funding was to produce
`
`12
`
`embedded FPGA blocks (hereinafter referred to as “eFPGAs”) covertly implementing Dr.
`
`13
`
`Konda’s innovations without having a license.
`
`14
`
`18. Unbeknownst to Dr. Konda at that time, Defendants Markovic and Wang concealed the
`
`15
`
`fact that they were involved in founding Defendant Flex Logix on February 26, 2014 as the
`
`16
`
`successor to Hierlogix to continue the commercialization of eFPGA blocks implementing and
`
`17
`
`passing off Dr. Konda’s innovations as their own innovations.
`
`18
`
`19. In or about December, 2015 Dr. Konda arranged to meet with Professor Vaughn Betz,
`
`19
`
`Ph.D. (hereinafter referred to as “Dr. Betz”) in the Department of Electrical and Computer
`
`20
`
`Engineering at the University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, to discuss certain results Dr. Konda
`
`21
`
`had achieved with the Versatile Place and Route (hereinafter referred to as “VPR”) tool suite
`
`22
`
`developed by Dr. Betz using VPR to implement Dr. Konda’s innovations. Dr. Konda met with
`
`23
`
`Dr. Betz in Toronto on or about December 18, 2015. During their meeting, Dr. Betz asked Dr.
`
`24
`
`Konda if he had heard of Flex Logix. Dr. Konda responded that he was not aware of Flex Logix.
`
`25
`
`Nor was Dr. Konda aware of any paper submitted by Defendants Markovic and Wang, Wang’s
`
`26
`
`Ph.D. dissertation, Hierlogix, or Flex Logix at the time of his meeting with Dr. Betz on
`
`27
`
`December 18, 2015.
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint
`-7-
`
`Page 7 of 483 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2030
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`20. After returning to California after his meeting with Dr. Betz on December 18, 2015, Dr.
`
`Konda began to investigate to uncover facts regarding the activities of Defendants Markovic and
`
`Wang and to investigate Flex Logix. In his pursuit to uncover the facts, Dr. Konda prepared an
`
`email which he sent to Flex Logix and UCLA and others on March 27, 2016 requesting
`
`additional information from, and action by, those entities regarding possible wrongdoing that he
`
`first suspected had occurred on the part of Defendants Markovic and Wang when his
`
`investigation yielded information during the weekend of March 26-27, 2016, when he first
`
`formed a suspicion that Flex Logix appeared to be implementing eFPGAs based on Dr. Konda’s
`
`innovations.
`
`10
`
`21. Due to the intentional misrepresentations and concealment of Defendants Markovic and
`
`11
`
`Wang, Dr. Konda was unsuspecting until that time of the illicit activities of Markovic and Wang
`
`12
`
`until he was able to piece together the facts included in his March 27, 2016 email. Until then, Dr.
`
`13
`
`Konda was in disbelief that Defendant Markovic would have betrayed the confidences and trust
`
`14
`
`of the relationship he believed he had with Dr. Markovic, who cloaked himself with and
`
`15
`
`exploited the pretextual credibility of UCLA, heretofore promoted as a respected educational
`
`16
`
`institution, but now exposed as a commonplace cutthroat competitor whose employees (i.e.,
`
`17
`
`Defendant Markovic) deprive unsuspecting inventors of their innovations. In view of the
`
`18
`
`intentional misrepresentations, concealment, and breach of the confidential relationship by
`
`19
`
`Defendant Markovic and his co-conspirator Wang, the facts regarding their wrongdoing were
`
`20
`
`concealed and thus not previously discoverable or known by Dr. Konda. At the time that he
`
`21
`
`prepared his March 27, 2016 email, Dr. Konda realized for the first time that he has been harmed
`
`22
`
`by the concealed, unauthorized commercialization of Dr. Konda’s innovations by the
`
`23
`
`Defendants.
`
`24
`
`22. Beginning March 27, 2016 until July 2018, Chief Executive Officer Geoffrey Tate
`
`25
`
`(hereinafter referred to as “CEO Tate” or “Mr. Tate”) of Flex Logix continuously dragged Dr.
`
`26
`
`Konda into email interactions and face-to-face meetings under the pretense of continuous
`
`27
`
`settlement negotiations, seeking more and more information from Dr. Konda.
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint
`-8-
`
`Page 8 of 483 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2030
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`23. Then, notwithstanding the continuing settlement negotiations, on July 13, 2018, Flex
`
`Logix filed a lawsuit in the Federal District Court against Konda Tech and Dr. Konda for unfair
`
`business practices.
`
`24. Subsequently, after Dr. Konda and Konda Tech prepared counterclaims to be filed in the
`
`Federal District Court action, Flex Logix requested to extend settlement discussions to prevent
`
`Konda Tech and Dr. Konda from filing the counterclaims.
`
`25. Later, on December 10, 2018, Flex Logix voluntarily dismissed the lawsuit after the
`
`Federal District Court ordered Konda Tech and Dr. Konda to answer the lawsuit filed by Flex
`
`Logix by December 10, 2018.
`
`10
`
`26. On December 17, 2018, Konda Tech filed a lawsuit against Flex Logix in the Federal
`
`11
`
`District Court. After Flex Logix filed a motion to dismiss on January 24, 2019, Konda Tech filed
`
`12
`
`a First Amended Complaint on February 21, 2019, with additional causes of action, including,
`
`13
`
`fraud – intentional misrepresentation, and fraud – concealment. On March 18, 2019 Flex Logix
`
`14
`
`filed another motion to dismiss.
`
`15
`
`27. On April 3, 2019, Dr. Konda filed his California state complaint and dismissed the
`
`16
`
`District Court action, without prejudice.
`
`17
`
`28. On June 3, 2019, CEO Tate of Flex Logix threatened an eFPGA vendor at Design
`
`18
`
`Automation Conference 2019 (hereinafter referred to as “DAC 2019”), Las Vegas that the
`
`19
`
`vendor should not do business with Konda Tech or Dr. Konda.
`
`20
`
`29. As an unnecessary adjunct to the “Motion for Protective Order,” counsel for the
`
`21
`
`Defendants Markovic, Wang, and Flex Logix, Mr. Steven M. Perry (hereinafter referred to as
`
`22
`
`“Mr. Perry”), publicly e-filed his declaration together with Dr. Konda’s confidential Trade Secret
`
`23
`
`List without notifying or obtaining authorization from Dr. Konda and without filing the Trade
`
`24
`
`Secret List using the “Confidential” selection under the “Security and Optional Services”
`
`25
`
`category on the e-filing system. Thus, Mr. Perry made Dr. Konda’s confidential Trade Secret
`
`26
`
`List public in furtherance of the ongoing conspiracy to deprive Dr. Konda of his trade secrets.
`
`27
`
`30. On January 15, 2020, Defendants Markovic, Wang, Flex Logix, The Regents of the
`
`28
`
`University of California (hereinafter referred to as “UC Regents”), Mr. Tate, Mr. Pierre Lamond
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint
`-9-
`
`Page 9 of 483 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2030
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`(hereinafter referred to as “Mr. Lamond”), Mr. Peter Hebert (hereinafter referred to as “Mr.
`
`Hebert), and Leslie M. Lackman Ph.D. (hereinafter referred to as “Dr. Lackman”) committed
`
`witness tampering by threatening a Professor at UC Davis (hereinafter referred to as “Prof. at UC
`
`Davis”) who provided a declaration in support of the confidential trade secret document indeed
`
`containing confidential trade secrets and with particularity, which was provided by Dr. Konda
`
`during the meet and confer process to resolve a discovery dispute.
`
`31. As a result, all Defendants have committed actionable acts and continued their ongoing
`
`conspiracy even after Dr. Konda’s original complaint and First Amended Complaint were filed.
`
`
`
`PARTIES
`
`32. Plaintiff Venkat Konda, Ph.D. is and at all times herein mentioned was a resident of
`
`12
`
`Santa Clara County, California. Konda Tech, a California Corporation, has assigned to Dr.
`
`13
`
`Konda as the sole shareholder and owner of Konda Tech the right to bring this action in his
`
`14
`
`individual capacity, as well as all right, title, and interest to recover damages and injunctive
`
`15
`
`relief.
`
`16
`
`33. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendant Markovic is an
`
`17
`
`individual who is a resident of California and conducts business in Santa Clara County,
`
`18
`
`California.
`
`19
`
`34. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendant Wang is an
`
`20
`
`individual who is a resident of California and conducts business in Santa Clara County,
`
`21
`
`California.
`
`22
`
`35. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendant The Regents of the University of
`
`23
`
`California have their principal office in California and conduct business in Santa Clara County,
`
`24
`
`California.
`
`25
`
`36. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Flex Logix has its principal place of business and
`
`26
`
`conducts business in Santa Clara County, California.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint
`-10-
`
`Page 10 of 483 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2030
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`37. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendant Mr. Tate is an
`
`individual who is a resident of California and conducts business in Santa Clara County,
`
`California.
`
`38. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendant Mr. Lamond is
`
`an individual who is a resident of California and conducts business in Santa Clara County,
`
`California.
`
`39. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendant Mr. Hebert is an
`
`individual who is a resident of California and conducts business in Santa Clara County,
`
`California.
`
`10
`
`40. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that Defendant Dr. Lackman is
`
`11
`
`an individual who is a resident of California and conducts business in Santa Clara County,
`
`12
`
`California.
`
`13
`
`41. Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as DOES
`
`14
`
`1 through 20, inclusive, and therefore sues these Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff
`
`15
`
`prays leave to amend this Fourth Amended Complaint to allege their true names and capacities
`
`16
`
`when the same have been ascertained.
`
`17
`
`42. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that each of the Defendants
`
`18
`
`sued herein is responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged, and that Plaintiff’s
`
`19
`
`damages were proximately caused by such Defendants.
`
`20
`
`43. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereupon alleges, that at all times herein
`
`21
`
`mentioned, each of the Defendants, was and were, at all times, acting as principals or agents,
`
`22
`
`employees, or representatives within the purpose and scope of such agency, employment, or
`
`23
`
`representation as being responsible in some manner for the occurrences herein alleged.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`44. This Court has jurisdiction over this Fourth Amended Complaint pursuant to California
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`27
`
`Code of Civil Procedure Section 395(a) as the transactions, occurrences, and omissions to act
`
`28
`
`giving rise to the liability on the part of the Defendants occurred in Santa Clara County,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint
`-11-
`
`Page 11 of 483 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2030
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`California and/or they have directed their unlawful acts complained of herein in Santa Clara
`
`County, California.
`
`45. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendants for the additional reason that
`
`they have engaged in systematic and continuous contacts with Santa Clara County, California,
`
`inter alia, regularly conducting and soliciting business in Santa Clara County, and deriving
`
`substantial benefit from products and/or services provided to persons in Santa Clara County,
`
`California.
`
`
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`10
`
`46. Dr. Konda has a Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering from the University Of
`
`11
`
`Louisville, Kentucky. Dr. Konda is a pioneer in FPGA routing fabric and interconnection
`
`12
`
`networks technology. Dr. Konda has been granted more than fifteen patents in the technology as
`
`13
`
`of today. Dr. Konda founded Konda Tech, a California corporation, in 2007. Konda Tech’s
`
`14
`
`business is based on Dr. Konda’s work, and provides chip and system level interconnect
`
`15
`
`technology solutions. Konda Tech has licensed FPGA interconnect architecture intellectual
`
`16
`
`property rights to two FPGA chip vendors, the first of which has made and sold three generations
`
`17
`
`of chips.
`
`18
`
`47. In 2008, four of Dr. Konda’s patent applications were published, namely, WIPO WO
`
`19
`
`2008109756 A1 published on December 9, 2008 (See, Declaration of Vipin Chaudhary, Ph.D.
`
`20
`
`(“Dr. Chaudhary Decl.”) Exhibit A attached thereto), WIPO WO 2008147926 A1 published on
`
`21
`
`December 4, 2008 (See, Dr. Chaudhary Decl. Exhibit C attached thereto), WIPO WO
`
`22
`
`2008147927 A1 published on December 4, 2008 (See, Dr. Chaudhary Decl. Exhibit E attached
`
`23
`
`hereto), and WIPO WO 2008147928 A1 published on December 4, 2008 (See, Dr. Chaudhary
`
`24
`
`Decl. Exhibit G attached thereto) (hereinafter referred to collectively as the “2008 Konda
`
`25
`
`Publications”).
`
`26
`
`48. In late 2008, on a plane from San Francisco to New Orleans, Dr. Bonomi met Defendant
`
`27
`
`Markovic of the Department of Electrical Engineering, University of California at Los Angeles,
`
`28
`
`California. Defendant Markovic told Dr. Bonomi that his research interest and expertise was in
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint
`-12-
`
`Page 12 of 483 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2030
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`digital circuits, Digital Signal Processors (“DSPs”), and wireless systems. Defendant Markovic
`
`had not conducted any research in FPGAs prior to the time that he met Dr. Bonomi.
`
`49. In or around January 2009, Dr. Konda was introduced to Defendant Markovic by Dr.
`
`Bonomi. Defendant Markovic was and is a UCLA professor teaching technology courses in
`
`circuits and embedded systems (which technology overlaps and complements Dr. Konda’s
`
`innovations in FPGA routing fabric, but does not involve FPGA design or interconnection
`
`networks for FPGAs). Defendant Markovic also has interactions with UCLA/ITA. Defendant
`
`Markovic was not focused on FPGA work until he learned of Dr. Konda. Konda Tech was one
`
`of six startups that received an oral offer for funding from Cisco, led by Dr. Bonomi. Defendant
`
`10
`
`Markovic was aware of the oral offer to fund Konda Tech. (See, Exhibit 10 attached hereto.)
`
`11
`
`The Cisco offer was later rescinded for all six startups so Cisco funding for Konda Tech did not
`
`12
`
`materialize. Defendant Markovic became aware that Cisco’s offer to Konda Tech had been
`
`13
`
`rescinded, and that Konda Tech was still looking for funding. At that time Defendant Markovic
`
`14
`
`began to troll Dr. Konda for confidential information. (See, Exhibit 11 attached hereto.)
`
`15
`
`50. Unbeknownst to Dr. Konda, Defendant Markovic seized the opportunity to involve
`
`16
`
`Defendant Wang, then a Ph.D. candidate working under Markovic and looking for a Ph.D.
`
`17
`
`Dissertation topic, immediately began implementing integrated circuit devices based on the
`
`18
`
`disclosures in the 2008 Konda Publications without authorization from Dr. Konda or Konda
`
`19
`
`Tech.
`
`20
`
`51. Defendant Markovic further seized the opportunity to contact Dr. Konda, misrepresenting
`
`21
`
`that Konda Tech could receive funding through UCLA/ITA. (See, Exhibit 12 attached hereto.)
`
`22
`
`Defendant Markovic concealed the fact from Dr. Konda that Markovic and Wang had already
`
`23
`
`started implementing the disclosures in the 2008 Konda Publications as integrated devices in
`
`24
`
`Markovic’s lab at UCLA. Hence, Defendant Markovic, by presenting himself as an advisor to
`
`25
`
`Dr. Konda and purporting to arrange funding for Konda Tech, obtained confidential information
`
`26
`
`from Dr. Konda in confidence and thus entered into a confidential relationship with Dr. Konda.
`
`27
`
`Defendant Markovic suggested that Dr. Konda make a presentation to UCLA/ITA. Dr. Konda
`
`28
`
`provided Konda Tech’s confidential Business Presentation to Defendant Markovic on October 7,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s Fourth Amended Complaint
`-13-
`
`Page 13 of 483 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2030
`
`

`

`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`2009 in confidence. (See, Exhibit 13 attached hereto in a Confidential and sealed envelo