`571-272-7822
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper 13
`Entered: September 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.
`____________
`
`Case PGR2019-00040
`Patent 10,003,553 B2
`____________
`
`
`
`Before PATRICK M. BOUCHER, CHARLES J. BOUDREAU, and
`NORMAN H. BEAMER, Administrative Patent Judges.
`
`BOUCHER, Administrative Patent Judge.
`
`
`DECISION
`Denying Institution of Post-Grant Review
`35 U.S.C. § 324
`
`
`Flex Logix Technologies, Inc. (“Petitioner”) filed a Petition (Paper 1,
`“Pet.”) pursuant to 35 U.S.C. ¶¶ 321–329 to institute a post-grant review of
`claims 1–7, 9–15, and 17–19 of U.S. Patent No. 10,003,553 B2 (“the ’553
`
`Page 1 of 14 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2017
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00040
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`patent”). Venkat Konda (“Patent Owner”)1 filed a Preliminary Response
`(Paper 5, “Prelim. Resp.”). For the reasons set forth below, we exercise our
`discretion under 35 U.S.C. § 324 and deny the Petition.
`
`
`I. BACKGROUND
`A. The ’553 Patent
`The ’553 patent was filed on April 28, 2016, and claims the benefit of
`the following: (1) the March 6, 2014 filing date of U.S. Patent Appl. No.
`14/199,168 (now issued as U.S. Patent No. 9,374,322 (“the ’322 patent”));
`(2) the September 6, 2012 filing date of PCT/US12/53814 (“the ’814 PCT
`application”); and (3) the September 7, 2011 filing date of Provisional Patent
`Appl. No. 61/531,615 (“the ’615 provisional application”). Ex. 1001,
`1:8–14; Ex. 1004, 1 (Certificate of Correction). A summary drawing
`provided by Petitioner is reproduced below. Pet. 4.
`
`
`1 The Petition identifies the owner of the ’553 patent as Konda
`Technologies, Inc. Pet. 1. This appears to have been correct at the time the
`Petition was filed, on March 18, 2019. But on April 8, 2019, an assignment
`was recorded with the Office at reel/frame 048822/0867 assigning the ’553
`patent to Venkat Konda. This ownership is also reflected in Patent Owner’s
`mandatory notices, filed on April 9, 2019. Paper 4.
`2
`
`Page 2 of 14 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2017
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00040
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`
`
`Petitioner’s drawing summarizes certain claims to earlier filing dates, and is
`similar to a drawing provided by Patent Owner that is in substantial
`agreement. See Prelim. Resp. 7. Although the drawing also refers to U.S.
`Patent Appl. No. 15/984,408, that application is not relevant to this
`proceeding. In addition, the ’553 patent recites that it incorporates the
`“entirety” of several additional patents and applications. Id. at 1:14–2:62.
`The ’553 patent relates to multi-stage interconnection networks that
`find utility in multiple applications. Id. at 2:66–3:1. According to the ’553
`patent, very large scale integration (“VLSI”) layouts for integrated circuits
`with such networks can be “inefficient and complicated.” Id. at 3:2–4. For
`example, prior-art networks of the type identified by the ’553 patent “require
`large area to implement the switches on the chip, large number of wires,
`longer wires, with increased power consumption, increased latency of the
`3
`
`Page 3 of 14 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2017
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00040
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`signals which [a]ffect the maximum clock speed of operation.” Id. at 3:43–
`48.
`
`Accordingly, the ’553 patent discloses a number of configurations of
`multi-stage hierarchical networks. One example is illustrated in Figure 1A
`of the patent, reproduced below.
`
`
`
`Figure 1A illustrates an exemplary partial multi-stage hierarchical network
`(or “block”) in which each computational block has four inlet links I1, I2, I3,
`I4 and two outlet links O1, O2. Id. at 8:57–62. For each computational
`block, a corresponding partial multi-stage hierarchical network has two
`“rings” 110, 120. Id. at 8:62–9:3. Ring 110 has inlet links Ri(1,1), Ri(1,2)
`and outlet links Bo(1,1), Bo(1,2). Id. at 9:4–6. Ring 120 similarly has inlet
`
`4
`
`Page 4 of 14 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2017
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00040
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`links Fi(2,1), Fi(2,2) and outlet links Bo(2,1), Bo(2,2). Id. at 9:5–6. The
`partial multi-stage hierarchical network thus has four inlet links and four
`outlet links corresponding to the two rings 110, 120. Id. at 9:6–9.
`Several connections characterize the specific structure illustrated.
`First, outlet link O1 is connected to inlet link Ri(1,1) of ring 110 and also to
`inlet link Fi(2,1) of ring 120. Id. at 9:9–11. Second, outlet link O2 is
`connected to inlet link Ri(1,2) of ring 110 and also to inlet link Fi(2,2) of
`ring 120. Id. at 9:11–13. Third, outlet link Bo(1,1) of ring 110 is connected
`to inlet link I1. Id. at 9:14–15. Fourth, outlet link Bo(1,2) of ring 110 is
`connected to inlet link I2. Id. at 9:15–16. Fifth, outlet link Bo(2,1) of ring
`120 is connected to inlet link I3. Id. at 9:17–18. Sixth, outlet link Bo(2,2)
`of ring 120 is connected to inlet link I4. Id. at 9:18–20. Because outlet link
`O1 is connected to both inlet link Ri(1,1) of ring 110 and inlet link Fi(2,1) of
`ring 120, and outlet link O2 is connected to both inlet link Ri(1,2) of ring
`110 and inlet link Fi(2,2) of ring 120, the partial multi-stage hierarchical
`network has two inlet links and four outlet links. Id. at 9:20–26.
`The drawing also illustrates multiple “stages.” Ring 110 (i.e., ring 1)
`consists of m+1 stages, and ring 120 (i.e., ring 2) consists of n+1 stages. Id.
`at 8:65–9:1. For example, “ring 1, stage 0” has four inputs Ri(1,1), Ri(1,2),
`Ui(1,1), Ui(1,2) and four outputs Bo(1,1), Bo(1,2), Fo(1,1), Fo(1,2). Id. at
`9:62–66. That stage also has eight 2:1 multiplexers R(1,1), R(1,2), F(1,1),
`F(1,2), U(1,1), U(1,2), B(1,1), B(1,2). Id. at 9:66–10:2. Multiplexer R(1,1)
`has two inputs Ri(1,1), Bo(1,1) and one output Ro(1,1). Id. at 10:2–3.
`Multiplexer R(1,2) has two inputs Ri(1,2), Bo(1,2) and one output Ro(1,2).
`Id. at 10:3–6. Multiplexer F(1,1) has two inputs Ro(1,1), Ro(1,2) and one
`
`5
`
`Page 5 of 14 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2017
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00040
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`output Fo(1,1). Id. at 10:5–6. Multiplexer F(1,2) has two inputs Ro(1,1),
`Ro(1,2) and one output Fo(1,2). Id. at 10:6–8. Multiplexer U(1,1) has two
`inputs Ui(1,1), Fo(1,1) and one output Uo(1,1). Id. at 10:9–10. Multiplexer
`U(1,2) has two inputs Ui(1,2), Fo(1,2) and one output Uo(1,2). Id. at 10:10–
`12. Multiplexer B(1,1) has two inputs Uo(1,1), Uo(1,2) and one output
`Bo(1,1). Id. at 10:12–13. Multiplexer B(1,2) has two inputs Uo(1,1),
`Uo(1,2) and one output Bo(1,2). Id. at 10:13–15. The patent also details the
`connections of other stages that appear in the drawing, some of which also
`have eight multiplexers and others of which have only six multiplexers. Id.
`at 10:16–12:59.
`As illustrated by Figure 8 of the ’553 patent (not reproduced here),
`multiple blocks like those shown in Figure 1A may be arranged in a two-
`dimensional grid. Id. at 9:27–35. In such an arrangement, each block of the
`grid is part of the die area of a semiconductor integrated circuit so that the
`complete two-dimensional grid represents the complete die of the
`semiconductor integrated circuit. Id. at 9:36–39.
`Figure 3 of the ’553 patent is reproduced below.
`
`6
`
`Page 6 of 14 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2017
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00040
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`
`
`Figure 3A illustrates connections between successive stages of a ring “x”
`and two successive stages of another ring “y.” Id. at 20:42–48. Of
`particular relevance are the “hop” connections between the distinct rings:
`Hop(1,1) connects output Fo(x,2p+2) to input Ri(y,2q+4), Hop(1,2)
`connects output Bo(x,2p+4) to input Ui(y,2q+2), Hop(2,1) connects output
`Fo(y,2q+2) to input Ri(x,2p+4), and Hop(2,2) connects output Bo(y,2q+4) to
`input Ui(x,2p+2). Id. at 22:15–26. The ’553 patent explains that rings x and
`y “may or may not belong to the same block of the complete multi-stage
`hierarchical network.” Id. at 22:29–30. If the rings belong to the same
`block, the hop connections are referred to as “internal hop wires”;
`conversely, if the rings belong to different blocks, they are referred to as
`“external hop wires.” Id. at 22:29–40. External hop wires may be
`7
`
`Page 7 of 14 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2017
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00040
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`“horizontal wires or vertical wires,” and the length of external hop wires,
`referred to as “hop length,” is the “manhattan distance between the
`corresponding blocks,” i.e. the sum of the vertical and horizontal differences
`separating the blocks. Id. at 22:40–63. Hop lengths are “positive
`integer[s].” Id. at 29:40–41, 32:18–19.
`
`
`B. Illustrative Claim
`Independent claim 1 of the ’553 patent is illustrative of the challenged
`claims, and is reproduced below.
`1. A network implemented in a non-transitory medium
`comprising a plurality of subnetworks and a plurality of inlet
`links and a plurality of outlet links,
`said plurality of subnetworks arranged in a two-
`dimensional grid of rows and columns; and
`each subnetwork comprising y stages, where y ≥ 1; and
`each stage comprising a switch of size di × do, where di ≥
`2 and do ≥ 2 and each switch of size di × do having di incoming
`links and do outgoing links; and
`Said inlet links are connected to one or more of said
`incoming links of a said switch of a said stage of a said
`subnetwork, and said outlet links are connected to one of said
`outgoing links of a said switch of a said stage of a said
`subnetwork; and
`each subnetwork of the plurality of subnetworks may or
`may not be comprising the same number of said inlet links and
`may or may not be comprising the same number of said outlet
`links; each subnetwork of the plurality of subnetworks may or
`may not be comprising the same number of said stages; each
`stage may or may not be comprising the same number of
`switches; and each switch in each stage may or may not be of
`the same size, each multiplexer in each stage may or may not be
`of the same size and
`
`8
`
`Page 8 of 14 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2017
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00040
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`
`Said incoming links and outgoing links in each switch in
`each stage of each subnetwork comprising a plurality of
`forward connecting links connected from switches in a stage to
`switches in another stage in same said subnetwork or another
`said subnetwork, and also comprising a plurality of backward
`connecting links connected from switches in a stage to switches
`in another stage in same subnetwork or another said
`subnetwork; and
`Said forward connecting links comprising zero or more
`straight links connected from a switch in a stage in a
`subnetwork to a switch in another stage in the same subnetwork
`and also comprising zero or more cross links connected from a
`switch in a stage in a subnetwork to a switch in the same
`numbered stage in one or more other subnetworks, and
`Said backward connecting links comprising zero or more
`straight links connected from a switch in a stage in a
`subnetwork to a switch in another stage in the same
`subnetwork; and also comprising zero or more cross links
`connected from a switch in a stage in a subnetwork to a switch
`in the same numbered stage in one or more other subnetworks.
`
`Ex. 1001, 48:62–49:40.
`
`
`C. Asserted Grounds of Unpatentability
`Petitioner relies on U.S. Patent No. 6,940,308 B2 (“Wong”) to
`challenge claims 1–7, 9–15, and 17–19 on the following ground:
`Claims Challenged
`Statutory basis
`Reference
`1–7, 9–15, and 17–19 § 102(a)(1)
`Wong
`
`
`Petitioner supports its challenges with a Declaration by R. Jacob Baker,
`Ph.D., P.E. Ex. 1002.
`
`
`9
`
`Page 9 of 14 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2017
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00040
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`
`D. Real Parties in Interest
`The parties identify only themselves as real parties in interest. Pet. 2;
`Paper 4, 2.
`
`
`E. Related Proceedings
`The ’553 patent was involved in Konda Technologies Inc. v. Flex
`Logix Technologies, Inc., No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK (N.D. Cal.). See Pet. 3.
`Subsequent to filing of the Petition, this action has apparently been
`dismissed without prejudice. Paper 10, 2. The ’553 patent is also the
`subject of concurrently filed petitions in PGR2019-00037 and PGR2019-
`00042. Pet. 4; Prelim. Resp. 2.
`
`
`II. ANALYSIS
`As noted above, the instant Petition is one of three petitions filed by
`Petitioner challenging claims of the ’553 patent. Sua sponte, we ordered
`Petitioner to submit a ranking of the three petitions in the order it wishes the
`panel to consider the merits, as well as a succinct explanation of the
`differences between the petitions and why those differences are material.
`Paper 9. Petitioner complied with the order and Patent Owner responded.
`Papers 10, 12.
`Under 35 U.S.C. § 314(a), the Director has discretion to deny
`institution of an inter partes review. Cuozzo Speed Techs., LLC v. Lee, 136
`S. Ct. 2131, 2140 (2016) (“[T]he agency’s decision to deny a petition is a
`matter committed to the Patent Office’s discretion.”); SAS Inst. Inc. v. Iancu,
`138 S. Ct. 1348, 1356 (2018) (“[Section] 314(a) invests the Director with
`
`10
`
`Page 10 of 14 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2017
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00040
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`discretion on the question whether to institute review . . . .” (emphasis
`omitted)); Harmonic Inc. v. Avid Tech., Inc., 815 F.3d 1356, 1367 (Fed. Cir.
`2016) (“[T]he PTO is permitted, but never compelled, to institute an IPR
`proceeding.”).
`Our discretionary determination of whether to institute review takes
`into consideration guidance in the Patent Office Trial Practice Guide, August
`2018 Update, 83 Fed. Reg. 39,989 (August 13, 2018) (hereinafter “2018
`Trial Practice Guide Update”), available at https://go.usa.gov/xU7GP. In
`particular, the Trial Practice Guide states
`[t]here may be other reasons besides the “follow-on” petition
`context where the “effect . . . on the economy, the integrity of
`the patent system, the efficient administration of the Office, and
`the ability of the Office to timely complete proceedings,” 35
`U.S.C. § 316(b), favors denying a petition even though some
`claims meet the threshold standards for institution under 35
`U.S.C. §§ 314(a), 324(a). This includes, for example, events in
`other proceedings related to the same patent, either at the
`Office, in district courts, or the ITC.
`2018 Trial Practice Guide Update 10–11.2 We are also mindful to construe
`our rules to “secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive resolution of every
`proceeding.” 37 C.F.R. § 42.1(b); Deeper, UAB v. Vexilar, Inc., IPR2018-
`01310, Paper 7 at 42 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019) (informative). Of the three
`petitions, PGR2019-00037 is directed to challenges raised under 35 U.S.C. §
`112, and the other two petitions are directed to prior art challenges raised
`under 35 U.S.C. §§ 102 and 103. See Paper 10, 2. Petitioner asserts that
`“[g]iven the number of claims, the length thereof (totaling about 2,086
`
`2 See also Patent Office Trial Practice Guide, July 2019 Update, 84 Fed.
`Reg. 33,925 (July 16, 2019), 26–28.
`
`11
`
`Page 11 of 14 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2017
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00040
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`words), and the number of grounds under § 112 alone, Petitioner could not
`have raised both the § 112 grounds and prior art grounds in the same
`petition.” Id. at 3. “Similarly,” according to Petitioner, “the length of the
`claims and requirement to demonstrate PGR eligibility . . . prevented
`Petitioner from combining all the prior art grounds in a single petition.” Id.
`Both parties agree that PGR2019-00037 should be ranked highest in the
`order of potential consideration. Id. at 3; Paper 12, 2 (“Patent Owner
`concurs with Petitioner’s ‘ranking.’”).
`Petitioner’s argument regarding the distinct nature of the § 112
`challenges and the prior-art challenges, coupled with the length limitations
`imposed on petitions for post-grant review, is persuasive. But we agree with
`Patent Owner that “at most two Petitions would be needed, one to consider
`the issues under § 112 and the other to consider §§ 102 and 103 issues.”
`Paper 12, 2–3; see H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 48 (2011) (warning the
`AIA’s procedures should not be used as tools for harassment). Accordingly,
`although we institute post-grant review in both PGR2019-00037 and
`PGR2019-00042 for the reasons set forth in concurrently issued decisions,
`we decline also to institute review in this proceeding.
`Both PGR2019-00040 and PGR2019-00042 involve the same
`petitioner and the same claims. Comparison of the petitions in PGR2019-
`00040 and PGR2019-00042 demonstrates that the anticipation grounds are
`substantially similar. We do not find any differences between the asserted
`art and arguments to be sufficiently material to outweigh the inefficiencies
`and costs of instituting both proceedings. PCT Application No.
`WO 2008/109756, which is the reference relied on in PGR2019-00042,
`
`12
`
`Page 12 of 14 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2017
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00040
`Patent 10,003,553
`
`names Patent Owner as inventor and contains terms and expresses concepts
`that track comparable portions of the ’553 patent in a number of respects—
`thus tipping the balance of discretion towards our initiating review in
`PGR2019-00042 and declining to do so in this proceeding.
`We have considered, but are not persuaded by, Petitioner’s argument
`that it had insufficient “notice before filing that ranking its petitions would
`be required.” Paper 10, 5. As noted above, the Director has always
`possessed statutory discretion whether to institute an inter partes based on a
`petition, both before and after promulgation of the Trial Practice Guide
`Update cited in our Order (Paper 9). See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a).
`
`
`III. ORDER
`
`It is
`ORDERED that the Petition is denied and no trial is instituted.
`
`13
`
`Page 13 of 14 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2017
`
`
`
`PGR2019-00040
`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
`venkat@kondatech.com
`
`
`14
`
`Page 14 of 14 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2017
`
`