From: Venkat Konda <venkat@kondatech.com>
`Sent: Friday, April 16, 2021 9:48 PM
`To: Trials <Trials@USPTO.GOV>
`Cc: Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com>; FlexLogix-Konda-IPR <ph-flexlogix-konda-
`ipr@paulhastings.com>; Venkat Konda <venkat@kondatech.com>
`Subject: Re: IPR2020-00260, -00261
`
`Patent Owner apologises for another. email on this issue, but wanted to point out that Petitioner
`added more lines to its position after requesting Patent Owner's position. Accordingly, Patent
`Owner would like to note that Petitioner's argument is self contradictory. According to
`Petitioner's argument that even if August 10, 2020 filing was Motion to Exclude, it would have
`deprived Petitioner an opportunity to submit Supplemental evidence and Patent Owner's filing
`would have been improper. Therefore Petitioner could have objected in August 2020 itself. Since
`Petitioner did not raise any objections then, Petitioner's seeking motion to strike now is
`improper, self contradictory and meritless.
`
`Very Respectfully,
`Venkat Konda
`Pro Se Patent Owner
`
`On Fri, Apr 16, 2021 at 2:57 PM Modi, Naveen <naveenmodi@paulhastings.com> wrote:
`
`Petitioner Flex Logix seeks leave to file a motion to strike the motions to exclude Patent Owner
`filed in the above-mentioned IPRs on April 13, 2021. Patent Owner has already filed motions to
`exclude in these proceedings on August 10, 2020. As such, the additional motions to exclude
`filed on April 13th are unauthorized. See Scheduling Order at 9 (stating “[e]ither party may file a
`motion to exclude evidence”) (emphasis added); 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c); CBM2016-00008, Paper
`31 at 3 (P.T.A.B. Sept. 6, 2016) (“Each party is permitted to file one motion to exclude without
`prior authorization.”) (emphasis in original).
`
`
`
`In addition, Petitioner notes that the motions to exclude that were filed on April 13th include new
`evidence (see, e.g., Exs. 2030-2033 in IPR2020-00260 and Exs. 2030-2037 in IPR2020-
`00261). As such, Petitioner seeks leave to file a motion to strike such new evidence as well.
`
`
`
`
`
`Petitioner planned to respond to the motions to exclude that were filed on August 10, 2020, in
`accordance with Due Date 6 in the Scheduling Order in each of IPR2020-00260 and -00261 (i.e.,
`April 20, 2021). Given the unauthorized motions to exclude filed by Patent Owner on April 13th,
`Petitioner seeks an expedited ruling on this request to strike so that Petitioner has an adequate
`notice and opportunity to respond. In its position below, Patent Owner now characterizes the
`motions it filed on August 20, 2020 as “objections.” But a simple review of the motions to
`exclude that were filed on August 20th shows otherwise. In fact, Patent Owner filed exhibits in
`support of the motions to exclude on August 20, 2020 (see, e.g., Ex. 2024 in IPR2020-00260 and
`-00261).
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`Petitioner conferred with Patent Owner and Patent Owner opposes Petitioner’s request. Patent
`Owner asked that its position be included as follows:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner opposes Petitioner's request as it has no valid ground. On August 10, 2020,
`PO timely filed Objections to Exclude under 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(1). Petitioner did not
`submit Supplementary evidence. On April 13, 2021, PO timely, i.e. in accordance with
`the Due Date 5 in the Scheduling Order, filed Motion to Exclude under 37 C.F.R. §
`42.64(c) preserving the objections raised on August 10, 2020. The Case CBM2016-
`00008, Paper 31 Petitioner referred to has no relevance to this case and furthermore the
`Board noted that "In addition, we ordered “that no motion to exclude evidence shall be
`filed by either party until after Due Date 3 (See Paper 19).” (See, CBM2016-00008, Paper
`31 at 3).
`
`
`
`
`
`The exhibits 2030-2033 in IPR2020-00260 and IPR2020-00261 are not new
`evidence. Pursuant to 37 CFR § 42.11, Petitioner was well aware of it and should have
`disclosed in this case as the evidence provided in the exhibits originated by Petitioner and
`its publications.
`
`
`
`
`
`Also Petitioner should be made to respond to the Motion to Exclude filed under 37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.64(c), on April 13, 2021 in both IPR2020-00260 & -261.
`
`To the extent the Board would like to have a call to discuss this request, the parties can be
`available at the Board’s convenience.
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully,
`
`Naveen Modi
`
`Counsel for Petitioner Flex Logix
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Naveen Modi | Partner & Global Vice Chair of IP, Litigation
`Department
`Paul Hastings LLP | 2050 M Street NW, Washington, DC 20036 | Direct:
`+1.202.551.1990 | Main: +1.202.551.1700 | Fax: +1.202.551.0490 |
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com | www.paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`******************************************************************************************
`This message is sent by a law firm and may contain information that is privileged or confidential. If you received
`this transmission in error, please notify the sender by reply e-mail and delete the message and any attachments.
`If you reply to this message, Paul Hastings may collect personal information including your name, business name
`and other contact details, and IP address. For more information about Paul Hastings’ information collection, privacy
`and security principles please click HERE. If you have any questions, please contact Privacy@paulhastings.com.
`
`
`
`
`--
`
`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.
`
`
`
`