`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`VENKAT KONDA,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2020-00261
`
`Patent 8,269,523 B2
`
`_________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S REPLY TO PETITIONER’S OPPOSITION TO
`PATENT OWNER’S MOTION TO EXCLUDE EVIDENCE
`PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(c)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 54
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523 PO’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to PO’s Motion
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`1. Petitioner Did Not Respond to PO’s Assertion in Section II.C Titled
`“Dr. Baker’s Own Prior Testimony Disqualifies Him as a POSITA”
`(Motion at 8-10.) .......................................................... 1
`
`
`2. Dr. Baker’s Testimony Is Inadmissible Because He Does Not
`Qualify as a POSITA ......................................................... 3
`
`
`3. The Board’s Denial of PO’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Baker’s
`Testimony in PGR2019-00037 and -00042 Is Not Relevant to This
`IPR Proceeding ......................................................... 3
`
`
`4. PO Has Submitted Unopposed Evidence of Secondary
`Considerations to Overcome Petitioner’s Obviousness Challenge . 4
`
`
`5. Conclusion: ........................................................ 7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page ii of 12
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 54
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523 PO’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to PO’s Motion
`
`Patent Owner Venkat Konda (“PO”) submits this reply to Flex Logix
`
`Technologies Inc.’s (“Flex Logix” or “Petitioner”) Opposition to PO’s Motion to
`
`Exclude (“Opposition”) and accompanying Declaration of Venkat Konda under the
`
`penalty of perjury in support of this Reply. (See, Ex. 2040.)
`
`The Board previously noted “Dr. Baker testifies as to his education .... At
`
`this preliminary stage, we cannot say that Dr. Baker’s scientific, technical, and
`
`other specialized knowledge will not be helpful ....” (See, “Institution Decision”,
`
`Paper 22 at 8). The Board also noted “Instead, we evaluated the record and
`
`determined that, at this stage of the proceeding, .... The parties will have the
`
`opportunity to further develop the record on these issues during trial, and the Board
`
`will evaluate the fully-developed record at the close of the evidence. (See,
`
`“Rehearing Decision”, Paper 32 at 8). However, Petitioner disregarded the Board’s
`
`Rehearing Decision and did not directly respond to any of the assertions in PO’s
`
`Motion to Exclude (“Motion”). Furthermore Petitioner’s Opposition contains
`
`several self-contradictions. Accordingly, PO respectfully requests the Board to
`
`exclude from evidence Exhibits Ex. 1002, Ex. 1003 and all argument in the
`
`Petition based on Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003 served with the Petition for the following
`
`reasons:
`
`1.
`
`Petitioner Did Not Respond to PO’s Assertion in Section II.C Titled “Dr.
`
`Baker’s Own Prior Testimony Disqualifies Him as a POSITA” (Motion at 8-10.):
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 12
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 54
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523 PO’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to PO’s Motion
`
`a. In disregard of the Board’s denial of the third concurrently filed Petition,
`
`namely, IPR2020-00262, under U.S.C. § 325(d), Petitioner’ Opposition argues
`
`that Denial Decision was not final: “But, the Board never ruled that ‘broader
`
`claim 1 (i.e., y≥1) was neither anticipated [n]or obvious over Wong” as Patent
`
`Owner contends.” (See, Opposition at 10, Footnote 5)
`
`b. Concurrently, on the contrary, Petitioner argues that: “The Board previously
`
`rejected Patent Owner’s attempts to undermine Dr. Baker’s testimony ... and
`
`should do so again here.” (See, “Opposition” at 1.)
`
`c. Petitioner also contends that: “No argument was ever advanced that Claim
`
`49 was broadened.” (See, Opposition at 10.) To the contrary, Petitioner makes a
`
`self-contradicting argument since the Opposition to PO’s Motion to Amend
`
`argued that Claim 49 was anticipated by Wong (See, Paper 38, 20-28.), with the
`
`support of another declaration of Dr. Baker. (See, Ex. 1052 at ¶¶ 52-150.)
`
`d. Yet, Petitioner’s Opposition does not contain any argument that narrower
`
`Claim 49 (i.e., y>1) was anticipated or obvious over Wong without referring to
`
`the expunged Exhibit 1058 (since Petitioner downloaded a copy from USPTO
`
`Public PAIR while it was available for a few hours on August 17, 2020).
`
`Evidently, Petitioner could not make any arguments independent of asserting
`
`Exhibit 1058 that narrower Claim 49 (i.e., y>1) was anticipated or obvious over
`
`Wong.
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 54
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523 PO’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to PO’s Motion
`
`2.
`
`Dr. Baker’s Testimony Is Inadmissible Because He Does Not Qualify as a
`
`POSITA: PO’s Motion with detail points out how many times the terms
`
`“networks”, “memory”, “FPGA”, and “interconnection networks” appear in Dr.
`
`Baker’s CV regarding his claimed qualifications as a POSITA. (See, Motion at 2-
`
`3.) Petitioner’s Opposition does not respond to any of the questions raised as to Dr.
`
`Baker’s qualifications, but instead repackaged the same response previously
`
`submitted in Paper 39 at 4-5. As a result, Petitioner tacitly concedes that Dr. Baker
`
`has no expertise in interconnection networks. Petitioner’s argument that “but [PO]
`
`does not explain why the [Dr. Baker’s] CV is inadmissible.” (See, Opposition at 2)
`
`is disingenuous. Similarly, Petitioner’s argument that “Dr. Baker is more than
`
`qualified to testify from the perspective of a POSITA” is devoid of merit based
`
`only on attorney argument, since Petitioner did not and could not introduce any
`
`facts to rehabilitate Dr. Baker’s qualification or his unqualified testimony.
`
`3.
`
`The Board’s Denial of PO’s Motion to Exclude Dr. Baker’s Testimony in
`
`PGR2019-00037 and -00042 Is Not Relevant to This IPR Proceeding: In the PGRs,
`
`the Board stated “Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude is procedurally improper
`
`because Patent Owner failed to timely object ....”, and “In this context, we note that
`
`this proceeding has ultimately involved considerably more legal issues than
`
`technical issues such that our reliance on Dr. Baker’s testimony has been relatively
`
`limited.” (See, PGR2019-00037 paper 37 at 41 and 43 respectively). Also, in the
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 12
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 54
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523 PO’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to PO’s Motion
`
`PGRs, PO did not submit evidence of secondary considerations or any independent
`
`expert witness’s testimony in those proceedings, whereas here, PO introduced Dr.
`
`Chaudhary’s expert witness testimony.
`
`4.
`
`PO Has Submitted Unopposed Evidence of Secondary Considerations to
`
`Overcome Petitioner’s Obviousness Challenge: The Board Institution Decision
`
`stated that “To the extent that Patent Owner is arguing ..., we note that the issue of
`
`objective indicia of non-obviousness is highly fact-specific. At this stage of the
`
`proceeding, the record ... is incomplete, and Petitioner has not had the ability to
`
`fully respond to ... Patent Owner. Our final decision will consider the parties’ full
`
`record of any objective indicia evidence developed during trial as part of our
`
`obviousness analysis.” (See, Paper 22 at 19-20).
`
`a. Petitioner did not respond to the evidence of secondary considerations in
`
`PO’s Motion at 10-15, except by way of unsupported attorney argument that
`
`those secondary considerations are pure speculation and irrelevant hearsay.
`
`(See, Opposition at 9.) To the contrary, PO hereby submits evidence that
`
`Petitioner misrepresented that Petitioner and Dr. Baker are not aware of the
`
`secondary considerations.
`
`b. Exhibit 2038 shows that Petitioner’s Counsel Mr. Paul Anderson met with
`
`PO among others and presented slides on October 24, 2018. Following up on
`
`that meeting, Exhibit 2039 at 3 dated November 15, 2018 dated show
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 12
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 54
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523 PO’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to PO’s Motion
`
`Petitioner’s argument that with respect to the ‘523 patent: “Because the ‘275
`
`application ..., if the submissions corresponding to filing the ‘275 application
`
`are somehow sufficient to constitute a utility patent application filing, the
`
`priority date for such an application is November 22, 2009 at best.” That
`
`argument is consistent with the Petition in the present case submitted with the
`
`support of Dr. Baker’s Declaration and CV. Also, Exhibit 2039 at 5
`
`demonstrates that: “In light of the foregoing analysis, ... elsewhere that Flex
`
`Logix was founded based on “stolen interconnect IP from Konda
`
`Technologies,” as well as all similar statements ....”. That Flex Logix was
`
`founded based on “stolen interconnect IP from Konda Technologies”
`
`substantiates that Dr. Baker, while reviewing the ‘523 patent among PO’s other
`
`patents indeed reviewed the Exhibits Ex. 2002 – 2004, and so Dr. Baker is fully
`
`aware of the evidence of secondary considerations contained in PO’s in Motion
`
`at 10-15. Therefore, Petitioner’s arguments that Dr. Baker is not aware of those
`
`secondary considerations are disingenuous and dishonest.
`
`c. The Board’s Institution Decision also stated: “Petitioner further contends
`
`that Wong and the ‘756 PCT are in the field of interconnection networks used
`
`in FPGA devices, and that Wong, like the ‘’756 PCT, “discloses Benes
`
`networks that include a plurality of stages of switches for use in FPGAs.” Pet.
`
`83–84 (citing Ex. 1008, code (54), 1:14–17, 1:59–2:6; Ex. 1009, 13:23–14:5;
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 12
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 54
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523 PO’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to PO’s Motion
`
`Ex. 1026, 8:21–9:7, 15:1–2, 2:7–16; Ex. 1002 ¶ 165). Therefore, according to
`
`Petitioner, “a POSITA implementing an integrated circuit device that includes a
`
`routing network as disclosed in [the ’756 PCT] would have had reason to look
`
`to Wong.” Id. at 84 (citing Ex. 1002 ¶ 165).” (See, IPR2020-00260, Paper 22 at
`
`22). Accordingly, Dr. Baker testified that a POSITA would have reason to look
`
`at Wong.
`
`d. Therefore, Petitioner’s argument that a POSITA would have reason to look
`
`at Wong, but Dr. Baker as a POSITA would be unaware of the Exhibits 2002-
`
`2004 which are publications by Co-founders of Petitioner is self-contradictory.
`
`e. Also, if Dr. Baker were not aware of the Exhibits 2002-2004 and these
`
`secondary considerations regarding the ‘523 patent, then Petitioner’s argument
`
`that Dr. Baker is more than qualified to testify from the perspective of a
`
`POSITA is not credible.
`
`f. Petitioner’s Opposition does not respond to PO’s assertion that: “The
`
`column-based layout disclosed in Wong is not practical for implementation of
`
`an FPGA.” (See, Motion at 11). So, Petitioner does not contest that the column-
`
`based layout disclosed in Wong is indeed not practical for implementation of an
`
`FPGA.
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 12
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 54
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523 PO’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to PO’s Motion
`
`g. Petitioner, by not responding in its Opposition, also concedes that certain
`
`figures in the Exhibit 2004 are a blatant plagiarism of the layouts disclosed in
`
`the ‘523 patent. (See, Motion at 12).
`
`h. Also, Petitioner, by not responding in its Opposition, does not contest the
`
`testimony in Dr. Chaudhary’s Declaration (Exhibits 2035-2036) in support of
`
`Exhibit 2034 that the Co-founders of Petitioner Flex Logix, Wang and
`
`Markovic, blatantly plagiarized PO’s disclosures including the ‘523 patent and
`
`published the Exhibits 2002 and 2004 in which they intentionally
`
`misrepresented PO’s inventions were their inventions (See, Motion at 13 & 14.)
`
`5.
`
`Conclusion: Therefore, Dr. Baker’s testimony in the Exhibits Ex. 1002, Ex.
`
`1003, in support of the Petition based on Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003 is disingenuous
`
`and fraught with contradictions. Both the USPTO examiner in the ‘275 application
`
`and the Board in its IPR2020-00262 Denial decision ruled that Wong is not
`
`anticipatory reference to the ‘523 patent. Not only is Dr. Baker’s Declaration
`
`(Ex.1052) contrary to those rulings and Dr. Baker’s non-opposition to the evidence
`
`of secondary considerations amplifies Dr. Baker’s lack of qualification as a
`
`POSITA. Accordingly, PO challenges the admissibility of Dr. Baker’s testimony.
`
`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, Patent Owner respectfully requests the Board to grant PO’s
`
`Motion.
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 12
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 54
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523 PO’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to PO’s Motion
`
`Date: April 27, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Venkat Konda/
`Venkat Konda
`Pro Se Counsel
`6278 Grand Oak Way
`San Jose, CA 95135
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 12
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 54
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523 PO’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to PO’s Motion
`
`CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.24(c)(2), Patent Owner certifies that PO’s Reply
`
`to Petitioner’s Opposition to PO’s Motion to Exclude Evidence under 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(c), filed April 27, 2021, contains 7 pages (5 pages and 2 additional pages
`
`authorized by the Board in an email communication) and 1,863 words, per
`
`computer generated information.
`
`/Venkat Konda/
`Venkat Konda
`Pro Se Counsel
`
`
`Dated: April 27, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificates - Page 1 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 54
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523 PO’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to PO’s Motion
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §42.6(e) and consent of the Petitioner, I certify that on
`
`April 27, 2021, a copy of PO’s reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to PO’s Motion to
`
`Exclude Evidence was served on counsel of record for Petitioner by email to PH-
`
`FlexLogix-Konda-IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`Dated: April 27, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Venkat Konda/
`Venkat Konda
`Pro Se Counsel
`
`Certificates - Page 2 of 12
`
`
`
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
