`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`VENKAT KONDA,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case PGR2019-00037
`
`Patent 10,003,553 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 10 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2022
`
`
`
`Paper No. 35
`
`PGR2019-00037
`Patent 10,003,553 PO’s Reply to Pet.’s Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
`
`II.
`
`PRIOR TO FILING THE PETITIONS, PETITIONER SHOULD
`HAVE KNOWN THAT DR. BAKER IS NOT QUALIFIED AS A
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”)
`ACCORDING TO ITS OWN DEFINITION; PEITIONER SHOULD
`NOT HAVE FILED DR. BAKER’S DECLARATION UNDER THE
`PENALTY OF PERJURY; TILL DATE PETITIONER DID NOT
`PROVIDE ANY EXPERT WITNESS IN SUPPORT OF DR.BAKER’S
`DECLARATION AND INSTEAD CONTINUES TO WASTE THE
`BOARD’S AND PATENT OWNER’S (“PO’s”) RESOURCES .............. 2
`
`III. CONCLUSION: PETITIONER AND ITS COUNSEL BRAZENLY
`CONTINUES TO USE THE AIA’s PROCEDURES AS A TOOL FOR
`HARASSMENT. (See, H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 48 (2011)). ............ 5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page ii of 10
`
`
`Page 2 of 10 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2022
`
`
`
`Paper No. 35
`
`PGR2019-00037
`Patent 10,003,553 PO’s Reply to Pet.’s Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`PATENT OWNER'S EXHIBIT LIST 1
`
`Exhibit No.
`
`Description
`
`Previously
`Submitted
`
`Ex. 2001
`
`Ex. 2002
`Ex. 2003
`
`Ex. 2004
`
`CMOS Circuit Design Layout and Simulation, 3rd
`Edition
`PGR2019-00037 Petition – Paper 1
`PGR2019-00042 Petition – Paper 1
`Venkat Konda Declaration in support of Revised
`Motion to Amend
`
`Ex. 2005
`
`IPR2020-00260 Petition – Paper 1
`
`Ex. 2006
`
`Ex. 2007
`
`Ex. 2008
`
`Ex. 2009
`
`Dr. Baker’s Declaration in support of the Petition
`IPR2020-00260 – Ex. 1002
`Dr. Baker’s CV in support of the Petition IPR2020-
`00260 – Ex. 1003
`IPR2020-00260 Patent Owner’s Preliminary
`Response – Paper 8
`Venkat Konda Declaration in Support of Patent
`Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Revised Motion to Amend
`
`Ex. 2010
`
`PGR2019-00040 Petition – Paper 1
`
`Ex. 2011
`
`Venkat Konda Declaration in Support of Patent
`Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to Patent
`Owner’s Motion to Exclude
`
`X
`
`X
`X
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`X
`
`
`
`
`
`Page iii of 10
`
`
`Page 3 of 10 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2022
`
`
`
`Paper No. 35
`
`PGR2019-00037
`Patent 10,003,553 PO’s Reply to Pet.’s Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Patent Owner Venkat Konda (“PO”) submitted his Motion to exclude the
`
`purported evidence based on Dr. Baker’s declaration served with the Petition for
`
`Post Grant Review (“PGR”) PGR2019-000371 filed by Flex Logix Technologies
`
`Inc. (“Flex Logix” or “Petitioner”) on May 20, 2020 (“Motion” or Paper 27). In
`
`response, Petitioner conferred with PO and requested to expunge the Motion to
`
`exclude, and PO disagreed. In the ensuing conference call with the Board on May
`
`27, 2020, the Board denied Petitioner’s request for leave to file a Motion to
`
`Expunge Patent Owner’s Motion to exclude and ordered Petitioner to file its
`
`Opposition to Patent Owner’s Motion (Exhibit 1043). Petitioner filed its
`
`Opposition to PO’s Motion on July 30, 2020 (“Opposition” or Paper 34). PO
`
`submits this reply to Petitioner’s Opposition and the declaration of Venkat Konda
`
`in support, who holds a Ph.D. degree in Computer Science and engineering and,
`
`unlike Dr. Baker, has extensive experience in designing, developing, researching,
`
`and teaching interconnection networks, for over two decades at the time of the
`
`effective priority date of the ‘553 Patent. See Ex. 2011.
`
`
`1 In addition to this PGR, Petitioner submitted the same declaration of Dr.
`
`Baker in another PGR2019-00042 filed by the same Petitioner concurrently on
`
`U.S. Patent No. 10,003,553 (“the ‘553 Patent”).
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 10
`
`
`Page 4 of 10 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2022
`
`
`
`Paper No. 35
`
`PGR2019-00037
`Patent 10,003,553 PO’s Reply to Pet.’s Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`II. PRIOR TO FILING THE PETITIONS, PETITIONER SHOULD
`HAVE KNOWN THAT DR. BAKER IS NOT QUALIFIED AS A
`PERSON OF ORDINARY SKILL IN THE ART (“POSITA”)
`ACCORDING TO ITS OWN DEFINITION; PEITIONER SHOULD
`NOT HAVE FILED DR. BAKER’S DECLARATION UNDER THE
`PENALTY OF PERJURY; TILL DATE PETITIONER DID NOT
`PROVIDE ANY EXPERT WITNESS IN SUPPORT OF DR.BAKER’S
`DECLARATION AND INSTEAD CONTINUES TO WASTE THE
`BOARD’S AND PATENT OWNER’S (“PO’s”) RESOURCES
`
`PO submitted his Motion to exclude pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64, 37
`
`C.F.R. § 42.11, and 37 C.F.R. § 42.51(b)(iii) and requested the Board to exclude
`
`Ex. 1002, Ex. 1003 and all the alleged support presented in the Petition based on
`
`Ex. 1002 and Ex. 1003. The Board during the May 27, 2020 conference call
`
`ordered Petitioner to file an opposition despite Petitioner’s arguments of timeliness
`
`of the Motion.
`
`In the Motion, PO contended that Dr. Baker is not qualified as a POSITA
`
`according to Petitioner’s own definition, let alone as expert witness which is very
`
`fundamental to the filing of its Petition. PO’s contention is not about the
`
`sufficiency or the weight of Dr. Baker’s declaration. PO’s contention is about the
`
`admissibility of Dr. Baker’s declaration that Dr. Baker is not even qualified as
`
`POSITA in view of Petitioner’s own definition of POSITA, let alone PO’s
`
`definition of POSITA. Notably, Dr. Baker is the only supposed witness in support
`
`of the Petition.
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 10
`
`
`Page 5 of 10 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2022
`
`
`
`Paper No. 35
`
`PGR2019-00037
`Patent 10,003,553 PO’s Reply to Pet.’s Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`In response to the previous PTAB cases mentioned by Petitioner in its
`
`Opposition, PO submits (1) Apple Inc. v. Achates Reference Publ’g, Inc., IPR2013-
`
`00080, Paper 90 at 48-49 (PTAB June 2, 2014) relates to claim construction of
`
`certain terms by the expert declarant in support of the petition and is not relevant to
`
`the present case; (2) Laird Techs., Inc. v. GrafTech, IPR2014-00025, Paper 45 at
`
`42 (PTAB March 25, 2015) relates to the sufficiency and weight of the expert
`
`declarant in support of the petition and so not relevant to the present case in which
`
`Dr. Baker has no experience in the field of the invention; (3) With respect to
`
`MindGeek, s.a.r.l. v. Skky Inc., IPR2014-01236, Paper 45 at 23 (PTAB January 29,
`
`2016), the Board’s final decision was that with or without the consideration of the
`
`weight of the expert witness’s declaration and exhibits it did not affect the final
`
`outcome and so it is not relevant to the present case; (4) With respect to AVX Corp.
`
`v. Greatbatch, Ltd., IPR2014-00697, Paper 57 at 26 (PTAB October 21, 2015), the
`
`Board’s final decision was that the moving party did not dispute the declarant as a
`
`POSITA and so it is not relevant to the present case. Here, PO contends that Dr.
`
`Baker is not even qualified as a POSITA, and so PO’s Motion is directed to the
`
`admissibility of Dr. Baker’s testimony because he is unqualified as such.; (5) With
`
`respect to CaptionCall, LLC v. Ultratec, Inc., IPR2013-00550, Paper 57 at 11-12
`
`(PTAB March 3, 2015), the moving party disputed that the declarant was a
`
`POSITA in “telecommunications technology for the deaf and hard of hearing”,
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 10
`
`
`Page 6 of 10 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2022
`
`
`
`Paper No. 35
`
`PGR2019-00037
`Patent 10,003,553 PO’s Reply to Pet.’s Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`whereas it conceded that the declarant was qualified in “telecommunications
`
`technology”. The moving party argued to constrict the “pertinent art,” i.e., the
`
`pertinent technology, to a particular subset of individuals who use the pertinent
`
`technology, rather than the pertinent technology itself, and the Board’s final
`
`decision thus noted that the relevant inquiry was as to the sufficiency and weight of
`
`the testimony by the expert declarant. In the present case, however, as PO
`
`contends, Dr. Baker is not even qualified as a POSITA according to Petitioner’s
`
`own definition because he does not even qualify as POSITA in the “pertinent art”
`
`of networks.
`
`The term “networks” appears only once in Dr. Baker’s entire CV of 34
`
`pages. Even in that one instance “Networks” is used to refer to Aerohive Networks,
`
`where Aerohive Networks is the name of a company (and the technical subject
`
`matter relates to memory) (See Exhibit 1003 at 30.) In comparison, the term
`
`“memory” appears more than 150 times in Dr. Baker’s CV of 34 pages. (This
`
`count even excludes the terms DRAM, ROM, EPROM, EEPROM, etc. where the
`
`letter “M” stands for memory in these terms). Clearly, Dr. Baker’s expertise is in
`
`memory. He has absolutely has no qualifications in “networks”.
`
`Also, the term “FPGA” appears four times in Dr. Baker’s CV of 34 pages.
`
`Three of those refer to the use an FPGA and not to implementation or design an
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 10
`
`
`Page 7 of 10 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2022
`
`
`
`Paper No. 35
`
`PGR2019-00037
`Patent 10,003,553 PO’s Reply to Pet.’s Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`FPGA or the interconnection network for an FPGA (An analogy is that a person
`
`who can drive an automobile is not a POSITA in the design of an automobile or
`
`the drivetrain to connect to an internal combustion engine). (See, Exhibit 1003 at 1,
`
`3 & 66.) The fourth reference in Dr. Baker’s CV of 34 pages is to implement
`
`memory for an FPGA, which is independent of networks. The term “fiber optics”
`
`is used three times in Dr. Baker’s CV of 34 pages (See, Exhibit 1003 at 2 twice &
`
`16), and all three of them refer to fiber optic devices which have got nothing to do
`
`with “networks”. The term “communications” is used five times in Dr. Baker’s CV
`
`of 34 pages (See, Exhibit 1003 at 2, 6 twice, 22, & 25) and all five of them have
`
`nothing to do with “networks”. Accordingly, in the entire section II.C of the
`
`Opposition, it is apparent that Petitioner grossly misrepresented that Dr. Baker is
`
`qualified as a POSITA. Notably, Petitioner neither provided expert witness
`
`evidence in support of section II.C of the Opposition nor any supplemental
`
`declaration of Dr. Baker to rehabilitate himself as a POSITA, in spite of the time it
`
`had since the Conference call with the Board on May 27, 2020.
`
`III. CONCLUSION: PETITIONER AND ITS COUNSEL BRAZENLY
`CONTINUES TO USE THE AIA’s PROCEDURES AS A TOOL FOR
`HARASSMENT. (See, H.R. Rep. No. 112-98, pt. 1, at 48 (2011)).
`
`PO respectfully requests the Board to grant PO’s Motion to exclude Ex.
`
`1002, Ex. 1003 and all their alleged support presented in the Petition.
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 10
`
`
`Page 8 of 10 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2022
`
`
`
`Paper No. 35
`
`PGR2019-00037
`Patent 10,003,553 PO’s Reply to Pet.’s Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`Date: August 3, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Venkat Konda/
`Venkat Konda
`Pro Se Counsel
`6278 Grand Oak Way
`San Jose, CA 95135
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 10
`
`
`Page 9 of 10 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2022
`
`
`
`Paper No. 35
`
`PGR2019-00037
`Patent 10,003,553 PO’s Reply to Pet.’s Opp. to PO’s Motion to Exclude
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.6(e) and consent of the Petitioner, I certify that
`
`on August 3, 2020, a copy of Patent Owner’s Reply to Petitioner’s Opposition to
`
`Patent Owner’s Motion to Exclude and the exhibits were served on counsel of
`
`record for Petitioner by email to PH-FlexLogix-Konda-PGR@paulhastings.com
`
`
`
`Dated: August 3, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`/Venkat Konda/
`Venkat Konda
`Pro Se Counsel
`
`Certificates - Page 1 of 10
`
`
`
`
`Page 10 of 10 IPR2020-00261
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2022
`
`