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
`
`HARMEET K. DHILLON (SBN: 207873)
`harmeet@dhillonlaw.com
`NITOJ P. SINGH (SBN: 265005)
`nsingh@dhillonlaw.com
`DHILLON LAW GROUP INC.
`177 Post Street, Suite 700
`San Francisco, California 94108
`Telephone: (415) 433-1700
`Facsimile:
`(415) 520-6593
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff Konda Technologies, Inc.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
`KONDA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
`California corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CASE NO. 5:18-CV-7581
`
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`1. Unfair Business Practices
`2. Infringement of U.S. Patent No.
`8,269,523
`3. Infringement of U.S. Patent No.
`8,898,611
`4. Infringement of U.S. Patent No.
`9,529,958
`5. Infringement of U.S. Patent No.
`10,003,553
`6. Infringement of U.S. Patent No.
`10,050,904
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Complaint
`
`1
`
`Page 1 of 29
`
`FLEX LOGIX EXHIBIT 1050
`Flex Logix Technologies v. Venkat Konda
`IPR2020-00261
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Plaintiff Konda Technologies, Inc. (“Konda Tech”), by and through its undersigned
`
`2
`
`counsel, hereby asserts as follows against Defendant Flex Logix Technologies, Inc. (“Flex
`
`3
`
`Logix”). Upon information and belief, Konda Tech alleges as follows:
`
`4
`
`5
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action for patent infringement arising under the patent laws of the
`
`6
`
`United States, Title 35 of the United States Code.
`
`7
`
`2.
`
`As set forth in more detail below, Flex Logix has been infringing United States
`
`8
`
`Patent Nos. 8,269,523 (the “’523 patent”); 8,898,611 (the “’611 patent”); 9,529,958 (the “’958
`
`9
`
`patent”); 10,003,553 (the “’553 patent”) and 10,050,904 (the “’904 patent”) (collectively, the
`
`10
`
`“patents-in-suit”), and continue to do so through the present date.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`3.
`
`Konda Tech is a California corporation with its principle place of business in San
`
`PARTIES
`
`13
`
`Jose, California.
`
`14
`
`4.
`
`Upon information and belief, Flex Logix is a Delaware corporation registered to
`
`15
`
`do business in California, and with its principle place of business in Mountain View, California
`
`16
`
`17
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over patent infringement Claims II–VI
`
`18
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1338(a), and the Court has supplemental jurisdiction over
`
`19
`
`state law Claim I pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.
`
`20
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Flex Logix because (a) it has committed
`
`21
`
`the acts of patent infringement complained of herein in this State and this District, and/or (b) it
`
`22
`
`has directed its acts of infringement and other unlawful acts complained of herein at this State
`
`23
`
`and this District.
`
`24
`
`7.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Flex Logix for the additional reason that
`
`25
`
`it has engaged in systematic and continuous contacts with this State and this District by, inter
`
`26
`
`alia, regularly conducting and soliciting business in this State and this District, and deriving
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 29
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`substantial revenue from products and/or services provided to persons in this State and this
`
`2
`
`District.
`
`3
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial
`
`4
`
`part of the acts complained of herein occurred in this District, Flex Logix transacts business in
`
`5
`
`this District, Flex Logix resides in this District, and/or the property that is the subject of this
`
`6
`
`action is situated in this District.
`
`7
`
`9.
`
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(c)–(d) and 1400(b)
`
`8
`
`because (i) Flex Logix resides in this District; and (ii) Flex Logix has committed acts of
`
`9
`
`infringement and has a regular and established place of business in this District.
`
`10
`
`11
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`10.
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 3-5(b), Konda Tech alleges that assignment to the San
`
`12
`
`Jose Division is proper under Local Rule 3-2(e) because Plaintiff and Defendant have their
`
`13
`
`principal places of business and/or reside in the San Jose Division, as alleged supra at paragraphs
`
`14
`
`3–4.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`
`11.
`
`Konda Tech was founded by Dr. Venkat Konda (“Dr. Konda”) in 2007. Dr.
`
`17
`
`Konda is a pioneer in field-programmable gate array (“FPGA”) routing fabric and
`
`18
`
`interconnection networks technology. Konda Tech is based on Dr. Konda’s work, and provides
`
`19
`
`chip and system level interconnect technology solutions. Konda Tech has licensed FPGA
`
`20
`
`interconnect architecture patent rights to two FPGA chip vendors, the first of which has made
`
`21
`
`and sold three generations of chips. Dr. Konda has a Ph.D. in Computer Science and Engineering
`
`22
`
`from the University of Louisville, and has been granted eleven patents in the space.
`
`23
`
`12.
`
`In or around January 2009, Dr. Konda was introduced to Dr. Dejan Markovic
`
`24
`
`(“Dr. Markovic”) by Dr. Flavio Bonomi (“Dr. Bonomi”), a VP Head of Advanced Architecture
`
`25
`
`and Research at Cisco Systems, Inc. (“Cisco”). Konda Tech was one of six startups that received
`
`26
`
`an oral offer for funding from Cisco that was later rescinded. Dr. Markovic knew of Cisco’s
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 29
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`rescinded offer, and that Konda Tech was still looking for funding, and Dr. Markovic claimed
`
`2
`
`that Konda Tech could receive funding through UCLA’s Institute of Technology Advancement
`
`3
`
`(“ITA”). Dr. Markovic was a UCLA professor focused on circuits and embedded systems (which
`
`4
`
`overlaps and compliments with Konda Tech intellectual property), and involved with the ITA.
`
`5
`
`Dr. Markovic was not focused on FPGA work until he met Dr. Konda.
`
`6
`
`13.
`
`Dr. Markovic was interested in Konda Tech’s intellectual property (“Konda Tech
`
`7
`
`IP”) and suggested that Dr. Konda present before the ITA. Dr. Konda did make such a
`
`8
`
`presentation on October 12, 2009. The presentation was fruitless as the ITA does not provide
`
`9
`
`funding to non-UCLA related entities—a fact that should have been known to Dr. Markovic.
`
`10
`
`14.
`
`Dr. Markovic, enamored with Konda Tech IP, also asked Dr. Konda to give a
`
`11
`
`seminar on the technology to Dr. Markovic’s students. Among those in attendance at the October
`
`12
`
`12, 2009 seminar was Dr. Cheng C. Wang (“Dr. Wang”), a graduate student at the time. Dr.
`
`13
`
`Wang grew similarly interested in Konda Tech IP.
`
`14
`
`15.
`
`In June and July 2010, Dr. Markovic called Dr. Konda, and told him that he
`
`15
`
`wanted to use Konda Tech IP in two different applications for DARPA funding. Dr. Konda
`
`16
`
`advised that he did not then have the time to work with Dr. Markovic. However, both times, Dr.
`
`17
`
`Markovic assured Dr. Konda that he would not have to spend any time on the application, and
`
`18
`
`that he would incorporate the Konda Tech IP into the application from the then published Konda
`
`19
`
`Tech WIPO patents. Dr. Markovic assured Dr. Konda that he would take a license from Konda
`
`20
`
`Tech should the DARPA grant be approved.
`
`21
`
`16.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and 2 are the June 23, 2010 and August 6, 2010
`
`22
`
`DARPA funding proposals (the “DARPA Proposals”) that followed those conversations.
`
`23
`
`17.
`
`Both of the DARPA Proposals make clear that Konda Tech IP was at the heart of
`
`24
`
`what Drs. Markovic and Wang were hoping to accomplish:
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`Konda Technologies inventions with regular VLSI layouts for Benes/BFT based
`hierarchical networks are seminal and subsumes all the other known network
`topologies such as Clos networks, hypercube networks, cube-connected cycles and
`pyramid networks, which makes these networks implementable in a FPGA devices
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 29
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`with regular structures both interconnect distribution-wise and layout-wise which is
`the key to exploit improved area, power, and performance of FPGA devices. The
`regularity of Konda hierarchical layout is also the key for its commercializability in
`System-on-Chip interconnect devices, FPIC devices as well.
`
`Indeed, the proposals state that they “will make use of hierarchically routed and proprietary Konda
`
`interconnect architecture.” The first DARPA Proposal further estimates that Dr. Konda and Konda
`
`Tech would complete 620 task hours of the estimate 1020 task hours for key personnel.
`
`18.
`
`Those DARPA Proposals, replete with references to Konda Tech IP, had been
`
`rejected. However, Dr. Markovic and Dr. Wang were not dissuaded from continuing to work
`
`with Konda Tech IP.
`
`19.
`
`In 2010, Dr. Markovic told Dr. Konda over the phone that his students, including
`
`Dr. Wang, were implementing Konda Tech IP, specifically the 2D layout, on an FPGA chip. In
`
`June 2011, Drs. Markovic and Wang presented a paper at the 2011 VLSI Circuits Symposium
`
`titled “A 1.1 GOPS/mQ FPGA Chip with Hierarchical Interconnect Fabric”—based on Konda
`
`Tech IP.
`
`20.
`
`Dr. Markovic invited Dr. Konda by email in the fall of 2013 to meet him at
`
`Stanford University while he was a Visiting Associate Professor. When they met, Dr. Konda
`
`inquired whether Dr. Markovic and his students had stopped implementing Konda Tech IP. Dr.
`
`Markovic replied yes. During the conversation Dr. Konda also shared the names of customers he
`
`was working with to license Konda Tech IP.
`
`21.
`
`Between 2011 and 2014, Drs. Markovic and Konda had occasional phone calls,
`
`where they spoke about the progress of their respective work, but Dr. Markovic never disclosed
`
`that Konda Tech IP was the subject of Dr. Wang’s June 2013 Ph.D. dissertation titled, “Building
`
`Efficient, Reconfigurable Hardware using Hierarchical Interconnects.”
`
`22.
`
`Dr. Konda met with Drs. Markovic and Wang at the home of Dr. Bonomi in
`
`January 2014. Dr. Bonomi had invited them to his home because he was in the process of
`
`forming his own startup, and needed to license Konda Tech IP. Dr. Bonomi was looking for
`
`implementation help from Drs. Markovic and Wang. Over the course of their discussions, Drs.
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`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 5 of 29
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`Markovic and Wang stated that they were looking for funding for their separate startup, but when
`
`2
`
`queried, refused to disclose the technological focus of their startup. Cryptically, Dr. Markovic
`
`3
`
`later stated that he may need to license Konda Tech IP for their separate startup as well.
`
`4
`
`23.
`
`A couple weeks later, Drs. Markovic and Wang published a paper titled “A Multi-
`
`5
`
`Granularity FPGA with Hierarchical Interconnects for Efficient and Flexible Mobile
`
`6
`
`Computing”—again, based on Konda Tech IP—at the 2014 International Solid State Circuits
`
`7
`
`Conference (the “ISSCC paper”). Though publishing at secondary conferences and journals, Drs.
`
`8
`
`Markovic and Wang never attended or published any papers at the International Symposium on
`
`9
`
`FPGAs held annually in Monterey, California. This is the primary FPGA conference, and one
`
`10
`
`they know Dr. Konda attends every year.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`24.
`
`25.
`
`The ISSCC paper is attached hereto as Exhibit 3.
`
`The ISSCC paper describes and demonstrates technologies that were invented by
`
`13
`
`Dr. Konda, monetized by Konda Tech, and the subject of the patents-in-suit.
`
`14
`
`26.
`
`Drs. Markovic and Wang’s conduct make clear that they employed subterfuge and
`
`15
`
`deceit to gain access to Konda Tech IP, develop their fraudulent credibility in the technology
`
`16
`
`through publications based on Konda Tech IP, and then used Konda Tech IP to launch their own
`
`17
`
`company—Flex Logix.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`27.
`
`28.
`
`Drs. Markovic and Wang ultimately co-founded Flex Logix in February 2014.
`
`Dr. Konda only learned of Drs. Markovic and Wang’s above-referenced
`
`20
`
`publications, dissertation, and the formation of Flex Logix in December 2015, when advised of
`
`21
`
`the same by Dr. Vaughn Betz, a University of Toronto professor, when he asked if Flex Logix
`
`22
`
`was using Konda Tech IP.
`
`23
`
`29.
`
`Flex Logix touts the ISSCC paper on its website as describing Flex Logix’s “new,
`
`24
`
`patented interconnect, XFLX™.” http://www.flex-logix.com/fpga-tutorial/.
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 29
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Unfair Business Practices
`
`30.
`
`Konda Tech incorporates by reference every allegation contained in each and
`
`4
`
`every one of the above paragraphs, as though set forth fully herein.
`
`5
`
`31.
`
`Flex Logix’s patent infringement, and other tortious behavior, as described above
`
`6
`
`and below in the causes of action listed in this Complaint, all constitute unfair and unlawful
`
`7
`
`business practices pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`32.
`
`33.
`
`The unlawful conduct described herein resulted in economic harm to Konda Tech.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of their acts mentioned herein, Flex Logix has
`
`10
`
`received and continues to receive ill-gotten gains belonging to Konda Tech.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`34.
`
`35.
`
`Konda Tech is entitled to restitution for its losses in an amount to be determined.
`
`Because the conduct alleged herein is ongoing, and there is no indication that Flex
`
`13
`
`Logix will cease its unlawful conduct described herein, Konda Tech requests that this Court
`
`14
`
`enjoin Flex Logix from further violations of California’s laws.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Infringement of Patent No. 8,269,523
`
`36.
`
`Konda Tech incorporates by reference every allegation contained in each and
`
`18
`
`every one of the above paragraphs, as though set forth fully herein.
`
`19
`
`37.
`
`The ’523 patent, entitled “VLSI Layouts of Fully Connected Generalized
`
`20
`
`Networks,” was duly and lawfully issued on September 18, 2012. A true and correct copy of the
`
`21
`
`’523 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 4.
`
`22
`
`38.
`
`Konda Tech is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in the ’523 patent,
`
`23
`
`including the right to bring this suit for injunctive relief and damages.
`
`24
`
`39.
`
`Konda Tech has the exclusive right to make, use, sell, and offer to sell any
`
`25
`
`product embodying the ’523 patent throughout the United States, and to import any product
`
`26
`
`embodying the ’523 patent into the United States.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`Page 7 of 29
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`40.
`
`Konda Tech has commercially exploited the ’523 patent by licensing the
`
`2
`
`underlying technology to companies who, like Flex Logix, wish to make use of Dr. Konda’s
`
`3
`
`inventions disclosed in the ’523 patent.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`41.
`
`42.
`
`The ’523 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`Upon information and belief, Flex Logix has had knowledge of Konda, the Konda
`
`6
`
`Tech IP, the ’523 patent, and Konda Tech’s commercial exploitation of the ’523 patent at least as
`
`7
`
`early as the issuance of the ’523 patent.
`
`8
`
`43.
`
`Flex Logix has been aware of the ’523 patent since at least as early as the filing of
`
`9
`
`this Complaint.
`
`10
`
`44.
`
`Flex Logix has infringed, and continues to infringe, literally and/or through the
`
`11
`
`doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’523 patent, including but not limited to claim
`
`12
`
`1, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing
`
`13
`
`within the United States, without authority, certain FPGA devices (“Accused FPGA Devices”).
`
`14
`
`45.
`
`On information and belief, the Accused FPGA Devices, such as an integrated
`
`15
`
`circuit device comprising a plurality of sub-integrated circuit blocks and a routing network. Flex
`
`16
`
`Logix infringed and continues to infringe at least claim 1 of the ’523 patent for at least the
`
`17
`
`following reasons:
`
`18
`
`19
`
`46.
`
`47.
`
`Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices are integrated circuit devices.
`
`On information and belief, Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices have a plurality
`
`20
`
`of sub-integrated circuit blocks and a routing network, and said each plurality of sub-integrated
`
`21
`
`circuit blocks comprising a plurality of inlet links and a plurality of outlet links.
`
`22
`
`48.
`
`On information and belief, Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices with said
`
`23
`
`routing network comprising of a plurality of stages y, in each said sub-integrated circuit block,
`
`24
`
`starting from the lowest stage of 1 to the highest stage of y, where y.gtoreq.1.
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Page 8 of 29
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`49.
`
`On information and belief, Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices with said
`
`2
`
`routing network comprising a plurality of switches of size d.times.d, where d.gtoreq.2, in each
`
`3
`
`said stage and each said switch of size d.times.d having d inlet links and d outlet links.
`
`4
`
`50.
`
`On information and belief, Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices with said
`
`5
`
`plurality of outlet links of said each sub-integrated circuit block are directly connected to said
`
`6
`
`inlet links of said switches of its corresponding said lowest stage of 1, and said plurality of inlet
`
`7
`
`links of said each sub-integrated circuit block are directly connected from said outlet links of
`
`8
`
`said switches of its corresponding said lowest stage of 1.
`
`9
`
`51.
`
`On information and belief, Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices with said each
`
`10
`
`sub- integrated circuit block comprising a plurality of forward connecting links connecting from
`
`11
`
`switches in a lower stage to switches in its immediate succeeding higher stage, and also
`
`12
`
`comprising a plurality of backward connecting links connecting from switches in a higher stage
`
`13
`
`to switches in its immediate preceding lower stage.
`
`14
`
`52.
`
`On information and belief, Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices with said each
`
`15
`
`sub- integrated circuit block comprising a plurality straight links in said forward connecting links
`
`16
`
`from switches in said each lower stage to switches in its immediate succeeding higher stage and
`
`17
`
`a plurality cross links in said forward connecting links from switches in said each lower stage to
`
`18
`
`switches in its immediate succeeding higher stage, and further comprising a plurality of straight
`
`19
`
`links in said backward connecting links from switches in said each higher stage to switches in its
`
`20
`
`immediate preceding lower stage and a plurality of cross links in said backward connecting links
`
`21
`
`from switches in said each higher stage to switches in its immediate preceding lower stage.
`
`22
`
`53.
`
`On information and belief, Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices with said
`
`23
`
`plurality of sub-integrated circuit blocks arranged in a two-dimensional grid of rows and
`
`24
`
`columns.
`
`25
`
`54.
`
`On information and belief, Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices with said all
`
`26
`
`straight links are connecting from switches in each said sub-integrated circuit block are
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Page 9 of 29
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`connecting to switches in the same said sub-integrated circuit block; and said all cross links are
`
`2
`
`connecting as either vertical or horizontal links between switches in two different said sub-
`
`3
`
`integrated circuit blocks which are either placed vertically above or below, or placed horizontally
`
`4
`
`to the left or to the right.
`
`5
`
`55.
`
`On information and belief, Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices with each said
`
`6
`
`plurality of sub-integrated circuit blocks comprising same number of said stages and said
`
`7
`
`switches in each said stage, regardless of the size of said two-dimensional grid so that each said
`
`8
`
`plurality of sub- integrated circuit block with its corresponding said stages and said switches in
`
`9
`
`each stage is replicable in both vertical direction or horizontal direction of said two-dimensional
`
`10
`
`grid.
`
`11
`
`56.
`
`To the extent Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices, without more, do not directly
`
`12
`
`infringe at least claim 1 of the ’523 patent, Flex Logix contributes to infringement of the same
`
`13
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) inasmuch as the Infringing Products offered for sale and sold by Flex
`
`14
`
`Logix are each a component of a patented machine or an apparatus used in practicing a patented
`
`15
`
`process, constituting a material part of Konda’s invention, knowing the same to be especially
`
`16
`
`made or especially adapted for use in infringement of the ’523 patent.
`
`17
`
`57.
`
`Flex Logix actively encourages its customers to use the Accused FPGA Devices
`
`18
`
`in an infringing manner. For example, Flex Logix’s website is replete with written directions
`
`19
`
`instructing users on how to use the Accused FPGA Devices in an infringing manner. Flex
`
`20
`
`Logix’s website also touts the identities of customers who use the Accused FPGA Devices,
`
`21
`
`including without limitation The Boeing Company, each of whom is a direct infringing inasmuch
`
`22
`
`as they use the Accused FPGA Devices in the infringing manner as instructed by Flex Logix.
`
`23
`
`58.
`
`Upon information and belief, and particularly by way of the detailed
`
`24
`
`documentation instructing users on how to use the Accused FPGA Devices in an infringing
`
`25
`
`manner, Flex Logix has encouraged this infringement with knowledge of the ’523 patent and
`
`26
`
`with a specific intent to cause their users to infringe.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 29
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`59.
`
`Flex Logix’s acts thus constitute active inducement of patent infringement in
`
`2
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`3
`
`60.
`
`Flex Logix will, on information and belief, continue to infringe, induce
`
`4
`
`infringement of, and contribute to the infringement of, the ’523 patent unless enjoined.
`
`5
`
`6
`
`61.
`
`62.
`
`Flex Logix’s infringement has irreparably harmed Konda Tech.
`
`Flex Logix will, on information and belief, continue to irreparably harm Konda
`
`7
`
`Tech unless enjoined.
`
`8
`
`63.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Konda Tech is entitled to damages adequate to
`
`9
`
`compensate for the infringement buy in no event less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`10
`
`64.
`
`Flex Logix’s infringement of the ’523 patent has been willful and deliberate and,
`
`11
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Konda Tech is entitled to treble damages.
`
`12
`
`65.
`
`This case is “exceptional” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and Konda
`
`13
`
`Tech is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees.
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Infringement of Patent No. 8,898,611
`
`66.
`
`Konda Tech incorporates by reference every allegation contained in each and
`
`17
`
`every one of the above paragraphs, as though set forth fully herein.
`
`18
`
`67.
`
`The ’611 patent, entitled “VLSI Layouts of Fully Connected Generalized and
`
`19
`
`Pyramid Networks with Locality Exploitation,” was duly and lawfully issued on November 25,
`
`20
`
`2014. A true and correct copy of the ’611 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 5.
`
`21
`
`68.
`
`Konda Tech is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in the ’611 patent,
`
`22
`
`including the right to bring this suit for injunctive relief and damages.
`
`23
`
`69.
`
`Konda Tech has the exclusive right to make, use, sell, and offer to sell any
`
`24
`
`product embodying the ’611 patent throughout the United States, and to import any product
`
`25
`
`embodying the ’611 patent into the United States.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Page 11 of 29
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`70.
`
`Konda Tech has commercially exploited the ’611 patent by licensing the
`
`2
`
`underlying technology to companies who, like Flex Logix, wish to make use of Dr. Konda’s
`
`3
`
`inventions disclosed in the ’611 patent.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`71.
`
`72.
`
`The ’611 patent is valid and enforceable.
`
`Upon information and belief, Flex Logix has had knowledge of Konda, the Konda
`
`6
`
`Tech IP, the ’611 patent, and Konda Tech’s commercial exploitation of the ’611 patent at least as
`
`7
`
`early as the issuance of the ’611 patent.
`
`8
`
`73.
`
`Flex Logix has been aware of the ’611 patent since at least as early as the filing of
`
`9
`
`this Complaint.
`
`10
`
`74.
`
`Flex Logix has infringed, and continue to infringe, literally and/or through the
`
`11
`
`doctrine of equivalents, one or more claims of the ’611 patent, including but not limited to claim
`
`12
`
`1, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 271(a), by making, using, selling, offering to sell, and/or importing
`
`13
`
`within the United States, without authority, the Accused FPGA devices.
`
`14
`
`75.
`
`On information and belief, Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices have an
`
`15
`
`electrical network on an electrical substrate. Flex Logix infringes at least claim 1 of the ’611
`
`16
`
`patent for at least the following reasons:
`
`17
`
`76.
`
`On information and belief, Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices have an
`
`18
`
`electrical network on an electrical substrate comprising a plurality of sub-networks
`
`19
`
`corresponding to blocks arranged in a two dimensional layout for a total of
`
` said sub-
`
`20
`
`networks with one side of said layout having the size of
`
` sub-networks and the other side of
`
`21
`
`said layout having the size of
`
` sub-networks where
`
`and
`
`.
`
`22
`
`77.
`
`On information and belief, Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices have said
`
`23
`
`electrical network on an electrical substrate comprising at most
`
` inlet links and at most
`
`
`
`24
`
`outlet links where
`
` and
`
` wherein either
`
`,
`
`, and said
`
`25
`
`each sub-network comprising at most
`
` inlet links and at most
`
` outlet links; or
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`12
`
`
`
`ba 
`
`a
`
`b
`
`1a
`
`1b
`
`1N
`
`2N
`
`1 N
`
`1
`
`2 N
`
`1
`
`N
`
`2
`
`
`
`N
`
`
`
`p
`
`2
`
`1
`
`N
`
`1
`
`
` p
`ba
`
`
`p
`
`2pp 
`
`Page 12 of 29
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`,
`
`, and said each sub-network comprising at most
`
` outlet links
`
`2
`
`and at most
`
` inlet links.
`
`3
`
`78.
`
`On information and belief, Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices have said each
`
`4
`
`sub-network comprising at most
`
` stages, starting from the lowest stage of 1 to the highest stage
`
`5
`
`of
`
`, where
`
`.
`
`6
`
`79.
`
`On information and belief, Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices have said each
`
`7
`
`stage comprising at least one switch of size
`
`, where
`
` and each said switch of size
`
`8
`
`9
`
` having
`
` incoming links and
`
` outgoing links.
`
`80.
`
`On information and belief, Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices have said each
`
`10
`
`sub-network may not be comprising the same number of said inlet links and may not be
`
`11
`
`comprising the same number of said outlet links; said each sub-network may not be comprising
`
`12
`
`the same number of said stages; said each stage may not be comprising the same number of
`
`13
`
`switches; and said each switch in said each stage may not be of the same size
`
`.
`
`14
`
`81.
`
`On information and belief, Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices have said
`
`15
`
`incoming links and said outgoing links in each said switch in said each stage of said each sub-
`
`16
`
`network comprising a plurality of forward connecting links connecting from switches in lower
`
`17
`
`stage to said switches one of succeeding higher stages, and also comprising a plurality of
`
`18
`
`backward connecting links connecting from said switches in higher stage to said switches one of
`
`19
`
`preceding lower stage.
`
`20
`
`82.
`
`On information and belief, Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices have said
`
`21
`
`forward connecting links comprising a plurality of straight links connecting from a said switch in
`
`22
`
`a said stage in a said sub-network to a said switch in another stage in the same said sub-network
`
`23
`
`and also comprising a plurality of cross links connecting from a said switch in a said stage in a
`
`24
`
`sub-network to a said switch in another said stage in a different said sub-network.
`
`25
`
`83.
`
`On information and belief, Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices have said
`
`26
`
`backward connecting links comprising a plurality of straight links connecting from a said switch
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`13
`
`
`
`N
`
`1
`
`
`
`N
`
`
`
`p
`1
`
`2
`
`N
`
`2
`
`
` p
`ba
`
`
`p
`
`1pp 
`
`y
`
`y
`
`1y
`
`dd 
`
`2d
`
`dd 
`
`d
`
`d
`
`d
`
`Page 13 of 29
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`in a said stage in a said sub-network to a said switch in another said stage in the same said sub-
`
`2
`
`network and also comprising a plurality of cross links connecting from a said switch in a said
`
`3
`
`stage in a said sub-network to a said switch in another said stage in a different said sub-network.
`
`4
`
`84.
`
`On information and belief, Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices have said all
`
`5
`
`cross links are connecting as either vertical or horizontal links between said switches between
`
`6
`
`each two different said sub-networks, which are either placed vertically above or below, or
`
`7
`
`placed horizontally to the left or to the right.
`
`8
`
`85.
`
`To the extent Flex Logix’s Accused FPGA Devices, without more, do not directly
`
`9
`
`infringe at least claim 1 of the ’611 patent, Flex Logix contributes to infringement of the same
`
`10
`
`under 35 U.S.C. § 271(c) inasmuch as the Infringing Products offered for sale and sold by Flex
`
`11
`
`Logix are each a component of a patented machine or an apparatus used in practicing a patented
`
`12
`
`process, constituting a material part of Konda’s invention, knowing the same to be especially
`
`13
`
`made or especially adapted for use in infringement of the ’611 patent.
`
`14
`
`86.
`
`Flex Logix actively encourages its customers to use the Accused FPGA Devices
`
`15
`
`in an infringing manner. For example, Flex Logix’s website is replete with written directions
`
`16
`
`instructing users on how to use the Accused FPGA Devices in an infringing manner. Flex
`
`17
`
`Logix’s website also touts the identities of customers who use the Accused FPGA Devices,
`
`18
`
`including without limitation The Boeing Company, each of whom is a direct infringing inasmuch
`
`19
`
`as they use the Accused FPGA Devices in the infringing manner as instructed by Flex Logix.
`
`20
`
`87.
`
`Upon information and belief, and particularly by way of the detailed
`
`21
`
`documentation instructing users on how to use the Accused FPGA Devices in an infringing
`
`22
`
`manner, Flex Logix has encouraged this infringement with knowledge of the ’611 patent and
`
`23
`
`with a specific intent to cause their users to infringe.
`
`24
`
`88.
`
`Flex Logix’s acts thus constitute active inducement of patent infringement in
`
`25
`
`violation of 35 U.S.C. § 271(b).
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 29
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`89.
`
`Flex Logix will, on information and belief, continue to infringe, induce
`
`2
`
`infringement of, and contribute to the infringement of, the ’611 patent unless enjoined.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`90.
`
`91.
`
`Flex Logix’s infringement has irreparably harmed Konda Tech.
`
`Flex Logix will, on information and belief, continue to irreparably harm Konda
`
`5
`
`Tech unless enjoined.
`
`6
`
`92.
`
`Pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Konda Tech is entitled to damages adequate to
`
`7
`
`compensate for the infringement buy in no event less than a reasonable royalty.
`
`8
`
`93.
`
`Flex Logix’s infringement of the ’611 patent has been willful and deliberate and,
`
`9
`
`pursuant to 35 U.S.C. § 284, Konda Tech is entitled to treble damages.
`
`10
`
`94.
`
`This case is “exceptional” within the meaning of 35 U.S.C. § 285, and Konda
`
`11
`
`Tech is entitled to an award of attorneys’ fees.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`Infringement of Patent No. 9,529,958
`
`95.
`
`Konda Tech incorporates by reference every allegation contained in each and
`
`15
`
`every one of the above paragraphs, as though set forth fully herein.
`
`16
`
`96.
`
`Konda Tech incorporates all of the above paragraphs as though fully set forth
`
`17
`
`herein.
`
`18
`
`97.
`
`The ’958 patent, entitled “VLSI Layouts of Fully Connected Generalized and
`
`19
`
`Pyramid Networks with Locality Exploitation,” was duly and lawfully issued on December 27,
`
`20
`
`2016. A true and correct copy of the ’958 patent is attached to this Complaint as Exhibit 6.
`
`21
`
`98.
`
`Konda Tech is the owner of all rights, title, and interest in the ’958 patent,
`
`22
`
`including the right to bring this suit for injunctive relief and damages.
`
`23
`
`99.
`
`Konda Tech has the exclusive right to make, use, sell, and offer to sell any
`
`24
`
`product embodying the ’958 patent throughout the United States, and to import any product
`
`25
`
`embodying the ’958 patent into the United States.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`Complaint
`
`
`15
`
`
`
`Page 15 of 29
`
`

`

`
`
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`100. Konda Tech has commercially exploited the ’958 patent by licensing the
`
`2
`
`underlying technology to companies who, like Flex Logix, wish to make use of Dr. Konda’s
`
`3
`
`inventions disclosed in the ’958 patent.
`
`4
`
`5
`
`101