`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 10
`Entered: August 19, 2019
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`____________
`
`
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VENKAT KONDA,
`Patent Owner.
`____________
`
`Cases PGR2019-00037, PGR2019-00040, and PGR2019-000421
`Patent 10,003,553 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK M. BOUCHER, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`ORDER
`Conduct Of The Proceeding
`37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1 This Order addresses issues that are common to all cases. We exercise our
`discretion to issue on Order to be filed in each case. The parties are not
`authorized to use this style heading for any subsequent papers.
`
`Page 1 of 4 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2014
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00037, -040, -042
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`
`On March 18, 2018, Petitioner filed three Petitions, each requesting
`post-grant review of certain claims of U.S. Patent No. 10,003,553. As stated
`in the Trial Practice Guide Update (July 2019), 26–272:
`Based on the Board’s prior experience, one petition
`should be sufficient to challenge the claims of a patent in most
`situations. Two or more petitions filed against the same patent
`at or about the same time (e.g., before the first preliminary
`response by the patent owner) may place a substantial and
`unnecessary burden on the Board and the patent owner and
`could raise fairness, timing, and efficiency concerns. . . . In
`addition, multiple petitions by a petitioner are not necessary in
`the vast majority of cases. To date, a substantial majority of
`patents have been challenged with a single petition.
`Nonetheless, the Board recognizes that there may be
`circumstances in which more than one petition may be
`necessary. . . . In such cases two petitions by a petitioner may
`be needed, although this should be rare. Further, based on prior
`experience, the Board finds it unlikely that circumstances will
`arise where three or more petitions by a petitioner with respect
`to a particular patent will be appropriate.
`Accordingly, to aid the Board in determining whether more than one
`petition is necessary, Petitioner is ordered to submit a Notice within seven
`(7) days of this Order, not to exceed 5 pages, identifying (1) a ranking of the
`three Petitions in the order in which it wishes the panel to consider the
`merits, if the Board uses its discretion to institute any of the Petitions, and
`(2) a succinct explanation of the differences between the Petitions, why the
`differences are material, and why the Board should exercise its discretion to
`
`
`2 Available at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/trial-
`practice-guide-update3.pdf.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 4 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2014
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00037, -040, -042
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`consider the additional Petitions if it identifies a Petition that satisfies
`Petitioner’s burden under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a). The Board encourages
`Petitioner to use a table to aid in identifying the similarities and differences
`between the Petitions.
`If he so chooses, Patent Owner may, within seven (7) days of the
`filing of Petitioner’s Notice, provide a Response not to exceed 5 pages,
`stating his position with respect to any of the differences identified by
`Petitioner. In particular, Patent Owner should explain whether the
`differences identified by Petitioner are material and in dispute. If stating that
`reasons are not material or in dispute, Patent Owner should clearly proffer
`any necessary stipulations.
`Petitioner and Patent Owner are instructed to file the same paper in all
`three proceedings. The panel will consider the parties’ submissions in
`determining whether to exercise its discretion to institute post-grant review
`under 35 U.S.C. § 324(a).
`It is
`ORDERED that within seven (7) days of this Order, Petitioner shall
`file a Notice consistent with the foregoing instructions; and
`FURTHER ORDERED that, within seven (7) days of Petitioner’s
`Notice, if it chooses to, Patent Owner may file a Response consistent with
`the foregoing instructions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
`
`Page 3 of 4 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2014
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00037, -040, -042
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`
`
`PETITIONER
`Naveen Modi
`Joseph E. Palys
`Paul M. Anderson
`Quadeer A. Ahmed
`PAUL HASTINGS LLP
`naveenmodi@paulhastings.com
`josephpalys@paulhastings.com
`paulanderson@paulhastings.com
`quadeerahmed@paulhastings.com
`
`PATENT OWNER
`VENKAT KONDA
`6278 Grand Oak Way
`San Jose, CA 95135
`
`
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 4 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2014
`
`