`
`
`
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`____________
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`____________
`
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES INC.,
`
`Petitioner
`
`V.
`
`VENKAT KONDA,
`
`Patent Owner
`
`____________
`
`Case IPR2020-00261
`
`Patent 8,269,523 B2
`
`_________
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER VENKAT KONDA’S SUPPLEMENTAL EVIDENCE IN
`RESPONSE TO PETITIONER’S OBJECTIONS TO PATENT OWNER’S
`EXHIBITS PURSUANT TO 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 31
`
`
`On August 10, 2020, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(c) Patent Owner Venkat
`
`Konda (“Patent Owner”) submitted to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“Board”)
`
`a Request for Rehearing to reconsider its decision granting institution of inter
`
`partes review IPR2020-00261 (“Petition”, Paper 1) of U.S. Patent No. 8,269,523
`
`(“the ‘523 patent”) (Paper No. 22). On August 24, 2020, pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(b)(1) Petitioner Flex Logix Technologies Inc. (“Petitioner”) submitted
`
`objections to the Exhibits 2025-2027 submitted by Patent Owner with his Request
`
`for Rehearing on the grounds that: (1) the exhibits constitute new evidence, (2)
`
`Patent Owner did not establish good cause, and (3) under Federal Rules of
`
`Evidence 401 and 402 the exhibits lack relevance. Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §
`
`42.64(b)(2), Patent Owner respectfully submits the following supplemental
`
`evidence in response to Petitioner’s Objections, that Patent Owner established
`
`good cause for the consideration of the Exhibits 2025-2027 submitted with Patent
`
`Owner’s Request for Rehearing.
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits to the Board that he established the
`
`following showing of good cause for the acceptance of the Exhibits 2025-2027 by
`
`the Board in Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing:
`
`(1)
`
`Prior to filing the Petition, Petitioner should have known that its only
`
`expert witness in support of the Petition, Dr. Baker, is not qualified in the
`
`“Pertinent Art” of this case, i.e., Dr. Baker is not qualified in the fields of either
`
`
`
`Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 31
`
`
`“interconnection networks”, or “Field Programmable Gate Arrays” or “networks”.
`
`(See, Paper 27 at 2-5)
`
`(2)
`
`Petitioner, its Counsel and Dr. Baker under the Penalty of Perjury
`
`should not have made misrepresentations and errors1. (See, Paper 27 at 2-5)
`
`(3) The Board’s Decision instituting the IPR stated that the Board
`
`accepted Dr. Baker’s testimony, since Petitioner submitted Dr. Baker’s testimony
`
`under the penalty of perjury in the Petition (Paper 22 at 8), but did not accord any
`
`weight to Patent Owner Dr. Konda’s Declaration given under the penalty of
`
`perjury in support of Patent Owner’s Preliminary Response (Paper 8).
`
`Consequently, the Board misapprehended in its Decision that “integrated
`
`networks” is a relevant field, instead of “integrated circuits” and “interconnection
`
`networks” being the “Pertinent Art”. Moreover, there is no such field as
`
`“integrated networks”.
`
`
`1 On August 10, 2020, Patent Owner filed his Motion to Exclude Dr. Baker’s
`
`testimony in the present case in view of the misrepresentations in Dr. Baker’s
`
`Declaration in support of the Petition (Paper 25). Notably, Petitioner did not, and
`
`evidently cannot, redeem itself as it did not submit supplemental evidence pursuant
`
`to 37 C.F.R. § 42.64(b)(2) by the due date of August 24, 2020.
`
`
`
`Page 2 of 8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 31
`
`
`(4) Because the Patent Owner Dr. Konda’s Declaration was not
`
`considered by the Board in the Decision instituting this IPR, Patent Owner is left
`
`with no other option but to submit an independent expert witness’s testimony in
`
`support of Patent Owner’s Request for Rehearing, i.e., Dr. Chaudhary’s
`
`Declaration (Exhibit 2025) and accompanying Curriculum Vitae of Dr. Chaudhary
`
`(Exhibit 2026) rectify the Board’s misapprehension in its Decision that “integrated
`
`networks” is a relevant field, whereas “integrated circuits” and implementing
`
`“interconnection networks” is the “Pertinent Art” and there is no such field as
`
`“integrated networks”. Rectifying the Board’s misapprehension establishes good
`
`cause.
`
`(5)
`
`Petitioner filed its Petition with the support of misrepresentations and
`
`errors in Dr. Baker’s testimony under the penalty of perjury, with disregard of the
`
`following (which further constitutes good cause for the Board to admit Exhibits
`
`2025 and 2026):
`
`a. Dr. Baker ignored the straightforward fact that the USPTO Examiner
`
`allowed Claim 1 as amended after the first Office Action in the patent
`
`application No. 12/601,275, which issued as the ‘523 patent, on May
`
`8, 2012, particularly with respect to “said routing network
`
`comprising a plurality of stages y, in each said sub-integrated circuit
`
`
`
`Page 3 of 8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 31
`
`
`block, starting from the lowest stage of 1 to the highest stage of y,
`
`where y≧1”.
`
`b. Dr. Baker ignored the straightforward fact that: “A POSITA would
`
`understand that the first stage of a butterfly fat tree network has no
`
`preceding stage, and so no backward connecting links are connected
`
`from the first stage. A POSITA would also understand that the last
`
`stage of a butterfly fat tree network has no succeeding stage, and so no
`
`forward connecting links are connected from the last stage.
`
`Therefore, a POSITA would understand that when there is one stage
`
`in a butterfly fat tree network as illustrated in FIG. 2A1-3 of the
`
`priority applications, it is the first stage as well as the last stage.
`
`Furthermore, the one stage has neither a preceding stage nor a
`
`succeeding stage, and so no forward connecting links are connected
`
`from the stage and no backward connecting links are connected from
`
`the stage. Such an understanding for a POSITA is straight forward.
`
`Accordingly no experimentation is needed to understand, let alone
`
`undue experimentation. (Exhibit 2025 at ¶¶35-37)”.
`
`c. As a consequence, Dr. Baker ignored the straightforward fact that “a
`
`POSITA reviewing the ‘605 PCT and the ‘394 Provisional would
`
`
`
`Page 4 of 8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 31
`
`
`have understood that the named inventor was in possession of the
`
`subject matter recited in claim 1, particularly with respect to “said
`
`routing network comprising a plurality of stages y, in each said sub-
`
`integrated circuit block, starting from the lowest stage of 1 to the
`
`highest stage of y, where y≧1” and that the ‘523 patent is entitled to
`
`the benefit of the May 25, 2007 filing date of the ‘394 Provisional
`
`(Exhibit 2025 at ¶¶38-39).”
`
`(6)
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(a)(1)(vi) and 37 C.F.R. § 1.14(c), the
`
`application of the then pending ‘394 Provisional was not available for public
`
`inspection without a power to inspect, i.e., the permission of Patent Owner.
`
`Accordingly, Patent Owner respectfully submitted that the Board’s Decision is in
`
`conflict with the policies and practices of the Office at the time of the ‘394
`
`Provisional and is based on an Erroneous Conclusion of law. Therefore this is
`
`good cause for the acceptance of the Exhibit 2027 in support of Patent Owner’s
`
`Request for Rehearing.
`
`(7)
`
`Patent Owner respectfully submits that the Exhibits 2025-2027 are
`
`indeed relevant and material under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402 to the
`
`issues of rectifying the Board’s misapprehensions and Erroneous Conclusion of
`
`
`
`Page 5 of 8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 31
`
`
`Law since they are essentially created by Dr. Baker’s misrepresentations and errors
`
`under the penalty of perjury.
`
`(8)
`
`Patent Owner could not have anticipated the Board’s
`
`misapprehensions and Erroneous Conclusion of Law. Therefore, Patent Owner
`
`respectfully requests the Board to admit the Exhibits 2025-2027 on the grounds
`
`establishing good cause discussed above, in support of Patent Owner’s Request for
`
`Rehearing.
`
`
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Patent Owner requests the Board to accept the
`
`supplemental evidence provided and that good cause has been established for the
`
`acceptance of the Exhibits 2025-2027, as they are indeed relevant and material
`
`under Federal Rules of Evidence 401 and 402, by the Board in regard to Patent
`
`Owner’s Request for Rehearing and to deny Grounds 1 and 2 in the Petition and
`
`decline to institute inter partes review of the ‘523 Patent.
`
`Date: August 30, 2020
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/Venkat Konda/
`Venkat Konda
`Pro Se Counsel
`6278 Grand Oak Way
`San Jose, CA 95135
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Page 6 of 8
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-00261
`Patent 8,269,523
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 31
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on August 30, 2020, Patent Owner
`
`Venkat Konda’s supplemental evidence in response to Petitioner’s objections to
`
`Patent Owner’s exhibits was served electronically via e-mail in their entirety on the
`
`following counsel of record for Petitioner by email to PH-FlexLogix-Konda-
`
`IPR@paulhastings.com
`
`Lead counsel:
`Naveen Modi (Reg. No. 46,224),
`Backup counsel:
`1. Joseph E. Palys (Reg. No. 46,508)
`2. Paul M. Anderson (Reg. No. 39,896)
`3. Quadeer A. Ahmed (Reg. No. 60,835).
`
`
`Service information:
`Paul Hastings LLP,
`875 15th St. N.W.,
`Washington, D.C., 20005,
`Tel.: 202.551.1700,
`Fax: 202.551.1705,
`Email: PH-FlexLogix-Konda-IPR@paulhastings.com.
`
`
`
`
`
`/Venkat Konda/
`Venkat Konda
`Pro Se Counsel
`
`
`Dated: August 30, 2020
`
`
`
`
`
`Certificates - Page 1 of 8
`
`
`
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
