`Patent 10,003,553
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 12
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES INC,
`
`Petitioner,
`
`v.
`
`VENKAT KONDA,
`
`Patent Owner.
`
`____________
`
`Case PGR2019-00042
`
`Patent 10,003,553 B2
`
`_________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S NOTICE TO
`AUGUST 19, 2019 BOARD ORDER ON THE CONDUCT OF
`PROCEEDING UNDER 37 C.F.R. § 42.5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 8 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2016
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00042
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 12
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`THREE PGR PETITIONS ON THE ‘553 PATENT ARE NOT
`NECESSARY ................................................................................................. 1
`
`III. CONCLUSION .............................................................................................. 5
`
`
`
`
`
`Page ii of 8
`
`Page 2 of 8 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2016
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00042
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 12
`
`
`On the August 19, 2019 Board Order, Patent Owner submits this same response
`
`in all the three proceedings of Post Grant Review of U.S. Patent No. 10,003,553
`
`(“the ’553 patent”): PGR2019-00037 (Paper 1, “Petition 1”), PGR2019-00040
`
`(Paper 1, “Petition 2”), and PGR2019-00042 (Paper 1, “Petition 3”).
`
`II. THREE PGR PETITIONS ON THE ‘553 PATENT ARE NOT
`NECESSARY
`
`Patent Owner is confused. As clearly shown in Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Responses, the ‘553 patent is PGR-ineligible in view of prior decisions of the
`
`Board. Nevertheless, Patent Owner responds as follows.
`
`1. In order to avoid duplication of effort by the Board, Patent Owner hereby
`
`states that his response to the Board’s August 19, 2019 Order in each of Cases
`
`PGR2019-00037, PGR2019-00040, and PGR2019-00042 is identical. Hence, the
`
`Board needs to review only one of Patent Owner’s responses filed in the Petitions
`
`to glean the Patent Owner’s response to the Board’s August 19, 2019 Order.
`
`2. It appears clear that Petitioner to the Board’s August 19, 2019 Order used its
`
`responses to delve into the merits of each of the petitions. Patent Owner
`
`understands that such a maneuver was inappropriate, since Petitioner was not
`
`permitted to respond to Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses to Petitioner’s
`
`Petitions on the issue of purportedly PGR-eligibility. Patent Owner strongly
`
`objects to Petitioner’s arguments purporting to support the merits of its Petitions in
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 8
`
`Page 3 of 8 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2016
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00042
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 12
`
`
`its responses to the Board’s August 19, 2019 Order arguing, for example, on page
`
`1 that Petitioner “…requests that the Board institute all three petitions” and “…all
`
`three petitions are meritorious and justified as explained below….”
`
`3. Patent Owner maintains his position that Petitioner’s Petitions should be
`
`dismissed because the ‘553 patent which claims priority to pre-AIA applications is
`
`clearly PGR-ineligible as fully set forth in Patent Owner’s Preliminary Responses
`
`filed on June 26, 2019 in response to Petitioner’s Petitions.
`
`4. Nothing in this response by Patent Owner should be considered as an
`
`admission or a waiver of any of the substantive responses in Patent Owner’s
`
`Preliminary Responses to Petitioner’s Petitions showing PGR-ineligibility.
`
`5. Without prejudice to his arguments that the ‘553 patent is PGR-ineligible, in
`
`response to Petitioner’s arguments, Patent Owner concurs with Petitioner’s
`
`“ranking,” for the reason that if a PGR proceeds, which should not happen due to
`
`PGR-ineligibility, it is logical that a review of the claims of the ‘553 patent under
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 (“§ 112 ”) should proceed before any assessment of the validity of
`
`the claims were to be undertaken under 35 U.S.C. § 102 (“§ 102 ”) or 35 U.S.C. §
`
`103 (“§ 103 ”).
`
`For this reason only one Petition is needed, as the claim analysis would inform
`
`the novelty and non-obviousness of the claims of the ‘553 patent. However, at
`
`most two Petitions would be needed, one to consider the issues under § 112 and the
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 8
`
`Page 4 of 8 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2016
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00042
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 12
`
`
`other to consider §§ 102 and 103 issues. But since an understanding of the claims
`
`after a § 112 analysis, including any amendment that would be made by Patent
`
`Owner, would be important to analyzing §§ 102 and 103 issues, there should be
`
`only one Petition, or at most two Petitions, but certainly not three Petitions. That
`
`would be extremely inefficient and costly and should be avoided for the reasons at
`
`the core of the Board’s August 19, 2019 Order.
`
`6. Patent Owner objects to Petitioner’s contention regarding the Petitions that
`
`“…the patent owner has asserted a large number of claims in litigation.”1 See, page
`
`2 of Petitioner’s Notices to the Board’s August 19, 2019 Order. Here, there is one
`
`patent, the ‘553 patent, only three independent claims, and a total of only 20
`
`claims, which required only the basic USPTO application fee when the application
`
`for the ‘553 patent was filed. The table on page 1 of Petitioner’s Notices to the
`
`Board’s August 19, 2019 Order shows that there are only 20 claims challenged
`
`under § 112 and only 17 claims challenged under §§ 102 and/or 103. In fact,
`
`Petitioner admits that there are only 20 claims at issue. See, page 3, line 2 of
`
`Petitioner’s Notices to the Board’s August 19, 2019 Order (“Petitioner challenges
`
`all twenty claims of the ‘553 patent under § 112.”).
`
`
`1 The Petitions were filed while Konda Technologies Inc. v. Flex Logix
`
`Technologies, Inc., No. 5:18- cv-07581-LHK (N.D. Cal.) was pending.
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 8
`
`Page 5 of 8 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2016
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00042
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 12
`
`
`7. Petitioner’s outlandish contention on page 2 of Petitioner’s Notices to the
`
`Board’s August 19, 2019 Order, that “…PO’s admissions in the Preliminary
`
`Responses simplify the issues that will be contested after institution” is pure
`
`fantasy. Patent Owner made no “admissions” in his Preliminary Responses.
`
`8. Petitioner’s Notices to the Board’s August 19, 2019 Order are wholly
`
`inappropriate in making the statement on page 4 that “PO has not disputed
`
`Petitioner’s analysis of Wong in Petition 2, and Petitioner should be availed the
`
`opportunity to further highlight any prior misstatements during trial.” Petitioner
`
`appears to assume that Petitioner has demonstrated PGR-eligibility, which is
`
`certainly not the case, and cannot be the case in view of previous decisions by the
`
`board on PGR eligibility as clearly shown in Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`
`Responses. Any comments by Petitioner regarding the merits are strenuously
`
`objected to by Patent Owner2. Similarly, the statement on page 4 of Petitioner’s
`
`Notices to the Board’s August 19, 2019 Order, that “While PO had the opportunity
`
`to narrow the issues and stipulate to the September 12, 2008 public availability
`
`
`2 In the March 26, 2019 Notice of Filing, on page 1 it was clearly instructed
`
`that “The preliminary response is limited to setting forth the reasons why the
`
`requested review should not be instituted.” Accordingly Patent Owner limited
`
`PO’s Preliminary Responses only to the PGR-ineligibility of the ‘553 patent.
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 8
`
`Page 6 of 8 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2016
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00042
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 12
`
`
`date, PO did not do so in its POPR….,” not only addresses the merits but in so
`
`doing concocts an issue that has never previously existed, and which Patent Owner
`
`disputes and would not stipulate to.
`
`9. Petitioner’s argument that applying the guidelines of the updated Trial
`
`Practice Guide would violate the Administrative Procedures Act and deny
`
`Petitioner due process is not well-taken. The updated Trial Practice Guide simply
`
`adopts a common sense approach that should have been taken by Petitioner in the
`
`first place. After all, Petitioner admits it could have undertaken to “structure its
`
`petitions differently,” under such a common-sense approach. See, page 5 of
`
`Petitioner’s Notices to the Board’s August 19, 2019 Order.
`
`III. CONCLUSION
`
`In conclusion, all of the supposed reasons argued by Petitioner are unpersuasive
`
`to explain why more than one Petition is required. Having more than one Petition
`
`would proliferate the number of records in the Office and complicate the filings by
`
`the parties and the Office and cut against the grain of the common sense policies
`
`embodied in the updated Trial Practice Guide
`
`Date: September 3, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 8
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Venkat Konda/
`Venkat Konda
`Pro Se Counsel
`6278 Grand Oak Way
`San Jose, CA 95135
`
`Page 7 of 8 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2016
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00042
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 12
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e)(4) and consent of the Petitioner, I certify that
`
`on September 2, 2019, a true and correct copy of Patent Owner’s Response to
`
`Petition’s Notice to the August 19, 2019 Board Order was served on counsel of
`
`record for Petitioner by email to PH-FlexLogix-Konda-PGR@paulhastings.com
`
`/Venkat Konda/
`Venkat Konda
`Pro Se Counsel
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 8
`
`Page 8 of 8 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2016
`
`