`
`
`
`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
`
`
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
