Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 21 Filed 01/24/19 Page 1 of 31
`
`
`
`GREGORY P. STONE (State Bar No. 78329)
`gregory.stone@mto.com
`STEVEN M. PERRY (State Bar No. 106154)
`steven.perry@mto.com
`ELIZABETH A. LAUGHTON (State Bar No. 305800)
`elizabeth.laughton@mto.com
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
`Los Angeles, California 90071-3426
`Telephone:
`(213) 683-9100
`Facsimile:
`(213) 687-3702
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`KONDA TECHNOLOGIES, INC., a
`California corporation,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`FLEX LOGIX TECHNOLOGIES, INC,.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`SAN JOSE DIVISION
`
` Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO
`DISMISS COMPLAINT PURSUANT TO
`FED. R. CIV. P. 12(b)(6) AND TO STRIKE
`PORTIONS OF COMPLAINT
`PURSUANT TO FED. R. CIV. P. 12(f);
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF
`
`Date:
`May 9, 2019
`Time:
`1:30 p.m.
`Judge:
`Lucy H. Koh
`Ctrm.:
` 8, 4th Floor
`
`
`
`
`MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`Page 1 of 33 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2008
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 21 Filed 01/24/19 Page 2 of 31
`
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE
`To Plaintiff Konda Technologies, Inc., and its counsel of record:
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on May 9, 2019, at 1:30 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the
`matter may be heard, in Courtroom No. 8 of the above-captioned Court, located at 4th Floor, 280
`South 1st Street, San Jose, CA 95113, Defendant Flex Logix Technologies, Inc. (“Flex Logix”)
`hereby does move the Court for an Order dismissing with prejudice in its entirety Konda
`Technologies, Inc.’s (“Konda Tech”) complaint in this action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil
`Procedure 12(b)(6) and/or for an Order striking or dismissing certain portions of Konda’s
`Complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f) and/or 12(b)(6).
`Specifically, Flex Logix moves for an Order dismissing with prejudice:
`[1]
`Konda Tech’s Third, Fourth, and Sixth Causes of Action because those Causes of
`Action fail to state a claim for patent infringement due to the invalidity of each of the patents
`under 35 U.S.C. § 102.
`[2]
`Konda Tech’s Second, Third, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Causes of Action because
`those Causes of Action do not plead facts sufficient to state a plausible claim for patent
`infringement.
`Konda Tech’s First Cause of Action for Unfair Business Practices pursuant to
`[3]
`California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq. as preempted by federal patent law
`and as barred by the statute of limitations.
`In the event that Konda Tech’s complaint is not dismissed in its entirety, Flex Logix also
`moves for an Order striking and/or dismissing Konda Tech’s complaint’s references to “fraud”
`due to the fact that the complaint’s references to fraud are immaterial and impertinent with respect
`to the claims pled and scandalous and in view of the complaint’s failure to plead any alleged fraud
`with particularity.
`
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 2 of 33 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2008
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 21 Filed 01/24/19 Page 3 of 31
`
`
`
`MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP
`
`
`
`This motion is based upon this Notice of Motion and Motion; the attached Memorandum
`of Points and Authorities1; all other materials supporting this Motion or the Reply brief filed in
`support thereof; all pleadings on file in this matter; and any other materials or arguments the Court
`may receive at or before the hearing on this Motion.
`
`DATED: January 24, 2019
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Gregory P. Stone
`GREGORY P. STONE
`
`By:
`
`
`Attorneys for Defendant FLEX LOGIX
`TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Defined terms in this Motion are also used in the accompanying Memorandum of Points and
`Authorities.
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 3 of 33 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2008
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 21 Filed 01/24/19 Page 4 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION TO DISMISS AND TO STRIKE .....................................1
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES ...................................................................1
`INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................1
`SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND ..............................................3
`I.
`KONDA TECH’S ALLEGATIONS OF INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’611
`PATENT, THE ’958 PATENT, AND THE ’904 PATENT ..................................................3
`A.
`The Asserted Patents and Their Relationship to Each Other .....................................3
`B.
`The Publication of the Konda PCT ............................................................................4
`C.
`The Konda PCT Anticipates Each of the ’611, ’958, and ’904 Patents .....................6
`KONDA TECH’S INFRINGEMENT CLAIMS ARE INADEQUATELY PLED ...............8
`KONDA TECH’S UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES CLAIM IS BASED ON
`ALLEGED PATENT INFRINGEMENT ..............................................................................9
`LEGAL STANDARDS ....................................................................................................................10
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................................11
`I.
`THIS COURT SHOULD DISMISS KONDA TECH’S INFRINGEMENT
`CLAIMS BASED ON THE ’611 PATENT, ’958 PATENT, AND ’904 PATENT
`BECAUSE THESE PATENTS ARE INDISPUTABLY INVALID ...................................11
`A.
`This Court May Properly Invalidate the ’611 Patent, ’958 Patent, and ’904
`Patent at This Time ..................................................................................................12
`This Court May Take Judicial Notice of and Consider Konda Tech’s Patent
`Publications and Applications on a Motion to Dismiss ...........................................12
`The ’611 Patent, ’958 Patent, and ’904 Patent Are Unquestionably Invalid ...........13
`C.
`KONDA TECH’S INFRINGEMENT ALLEGATIONS ARE INADEQUATELY
`PLED AND SHOULD BE DISMISSED .............................................................................13
`THIS COURT SHOULD DISMISS KONDA TECH’S UNFAIR BUSINESS
`PRACTICES CLAIM ..........................................................................................................17
`A.
`Konda Tech’s Unfair Business Practices Claim Is Preempted by Federal
`Patent Law ................................................................................................................17
`Konda Tech’s Unfair Business Practices Claim Is Also Barred by the
`Statute of Limitations ...............................................................................................18
`
`B.
`
`B.
`
`II.
`III.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
` 40972093.5
`
`
`
`-i-
`MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 4 of 33 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2008
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 21 Filed 01/24/19 Page 5 of 31
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`(continued)
`
`Page
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IV.
`
`THIS COURT SHOULD STRIKE AND/OR DISMISS THE COMPLAINT’S
`REFERENCES TO FRAUD ................................................................................................19
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................21
`
`40972093.5
`
`
`
`-ii-
`MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 5 of 33 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2008
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 21 Filed 01/24/19 Page 6 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`FEDERAL CASES
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`Page(s)
`
`
`AntiCancer, Inc. v. CellSight Techs., Inc.,
`No. 10CV2515 JLS (RBB), 2012 WL 3018056 (S.D. Cal. July 24, 2012) ...............................18
`
`Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor Materials Am., Inc.,
`98 F.3d 1563 (Fed. Cir. 1996) ......................................................................................................3
`
`Ashcroft v. Iqbal,
`556 U.S. 662 (2009) .............................................................................................................10, 15
`
`Avocet Sports Tech., Inc. v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.,
`No. C 11-04049 JW, 2012 WL 1030031 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 22, 2012) .........................................14
`
`Avocet Sports Tech., Inc. v. Garmin Int’l, Inc.,
`No. C 11-04049 JW, 2012 WL 2343163 (N.D. Cal. June 5, 2012) ...........................................16
`
`Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly,
`550 U.S. 544 (2007) ...................................................................................................................10
`
`Bonito Boats, Inc. v. Thunder Craft Boats, Inc.,
`489 U.S. 141 (1989) ...................................................................................................................17
`
`Brown v. Elec. Arts, Inc.,
`724 F.3d 1235 (9th Cir. 2013) ....................................................................................................10
`
`Bullwinkle v. U.S. Bank, Nat’l Ass’n,
`No. C13-03281 HRL, 2013 WL 5718451 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 21, 2013) ........................................11
`
`Cal. Inst. of Comput. Assisted Surgery, Inc. v. Med-Surgical Servs., Inc.,
`No. 10-02042 CW, 2010 WL 3063132 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 3, 2010) .............................................14
`
`CAP Co. v. McAfee, Inc.,
`No. 14-CV-05068-JD, 2015 WL 3945875 (N.D. Cal. June 26, 2015) ......................................16
`
`Chestnut v. Juel,
`No. C 96-3422 JSB, 1997 WL 68538 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 12, 1997) ..............................................13
`
`City of Royal Oak Ret. Sys. v. Juniper Networks, Inc.,
`880 F. Supp. 2d 1045 (N.D. Cal. 2012) .....................................................................................11
`
`Colgate v. JUUL Labs, Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-02499-WHO, 2018 WL 5619679 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2018) ..................................11
`
`Cooper v. Pickett,
`137 F.3d 616 (9th Cir. 1997) ......................................................................................................20
` 40972093.5
`Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`-iii-
`MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 6 of 33 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2008
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 21 Filed 01/24/19 Page 7 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Dallas & Lashmi, Inc. v. 7-Eleven, Inc.,
`112 F. Supp. 3d 1048 (C.D. Cal. 2015) ......................................................................................20
`
`Daniel v. Richards,
`No. 13-CV-02426-VC, 2014 WL 2768624 (N.D. Cal. June 18, 2014) .....................................20
`
`e.Digital Corp. v. iBaby Labs, Inc.,
`No. 15-CV-05790-JST, 2016 WL 4427209 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 22, 2016) ....................................15
`
`Elec. Scripting Prods., Inc. v. HTC Am. Inc.,
`No. 17-CV-05806-RS, 2018 WL 1367324 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 16, 2018) ......................................17
`
`Felix v. State,
`No. 1:13-CV-0561 LJO SKO, 2013 WL 3730176 (E.D. Cal. July 12, 2013) ...........................20
`
`Gilbert v. MoneyMutual, LLC,
`No. 13-CV-01171-JSW, 2015 WL 12953231 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 24, 2015) .................................11
`
`In re Gilead Scis. Sec. Litig.,
`536 F.3d 1049 (9th Cir. 2008) ..............................................................................................10, 11
`
`Gorski v. The Gymboree Corp.,
`No. 14-CV-01314-LHK, 2014 WL 3533324 (N.D. Cal. July 16, 2014) .............................12, 13
`
`Halton Co. v. Streivor, Inc.,
`No. C 10-00655 WHA, 2010 WL 2077203 (N.D. Cal. May 21, 2010) ...............................17, 20
`
`Hitachi Kokusai Elec. Inc. v. ASM Int’l, N.V,
`No. 17-CV-06880-BLF, 2018 WL 3537166 (N.D. Cal. July 23, 2018) ....................................14
`
`JAT Wheels, Inc. v. DB Motoring Grp., Inc.,
`No. CV 14-5097-GW(AGRx), 2016 WL 9453798 (C.D. Cal. Feb. 11, 2016) ..........................18
`
`Kearns v. Ford Motor Co.,
`567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) ....................................................................................................20
`
`L.M. Sessler Excavating & Wrecking, Inc. v. Bette & Cring, LLC,
`No. 16-CV-06534-FPG, 2017 WL 4652709 (W.D.N.Y. Oct. 17, 2017) ...................................15
`
`Lantiq N. Am., Inc. v. Ralink Tech. Corp.,
`No. CV 11-00234 EJD, 2011 WL 2600747 (N.D. Cal. June 30, 2011) .....................................14
`
`Montes v. U.S. Bank Nat’l Ass’n,
`No. CV 10-0022 PSG, 2010 WL 11597507 (C.D. Cal. July 21, 2010) .....................................19
`
`Moran v. Wash. Mut. Bank,
`No. 12-CV-04974 NC, 2012 WL 12920636 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 8, 2012) .....................................19
`40972093.5
`Case No. 3:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`-iv-
`MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 7 of 33 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2008
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 21 Filed 01/24/19 Page 8 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Novitaz, Inc. v. inMarket Media, LLC,
`No. 16-CV-06795-EJD, 2017 WL 2311407 (N.D. Cal. May 26, 2017) ....................................15
`
`Pfaff v. Wells Elecs., Inc.,
`525 U.S. 55 (1998) .....................................................................................................................10
`
`Plascencia v. Wachovia Bank,
`No. C 10-03552 RS, 2011 WL 249492 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 26, 2011) .............................................20
`
`SecuriMetrics, Inc. v. Hartford Cas. Ins.,
`No. C 05-00917 CW, 2005 WL 2463749 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2005) ...........................................20
`
`Select Controls v. American Electronic Components, Inc.,
`No. 07 Civ. 1306(DLC), 2008 WL 216612 (S.D.N.Y. Jan. 22, 2008) ......................................12
`
`Siegel v. Lyons,
`No. C-95-3588 DLJ, 1996 WL 634206 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 16, 1996) ..........................................20
`
`Summit Mach. Tool Mfg. Corp. v. Victor CNC Sys., Inc.,
`7 F.3d 1434 (9th Cir. 1993) ........................................................................................................17
`
`Tech. Licensing Corp. v. Videotek, Inc.,
`545 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2008) ....................................................................................................3
`
`Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc.,
`247 F.3d 1316 (Fed. Cir. 2001) ....................................................................................................4
`
`TMC Aerospace, Inc. v. Elbit Sys. of Am. LLC,
`No. CV 15-07595-AB (Ex), 2016 WL 3475322 (C.D. Cal. Jan. 29, 2016) ...............................18
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Apple Inc.,
`No. C 18-00359 WHA, 2018 WL 2047553 (N.D. Cal. May 2, 2018) .................................15, 16
`
`Uniloc USA, Inc. v. Logitech, Inc.,
`No. 18-CV-01304-LHK, 2018 WL 6025597 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 17, 2018) ..................................16
`
`Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA,
`317 F.3d 1097 (9th Cir. 2003) ....................................................................................................20
`
`Von Saher v. Norton Simon Museum of Art at Pasadena,
`592 F.3d 954 (9th Cir. 2010) ......................................................................................................18
`
`Windy City Innovations, LLC v. Microsoft Corp.,
`193 F. Supp. 3d 1109 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .....................................................................................16
`
`Wishnev v. Nw. Mut. Life Ins.,
`162 F. Supp. 3d 930 (N.D. Cal. 2016) .......................................................................................11
`40972093.5
`Case No. 3:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`-v-
`MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 8 of 33 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2008
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 21 Filed 01/24/19 Page 9 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`Zanze v. Snelling Servs., LLC,
`412 F. App’x 994 (9th Cir. 2011) ...............................................................................................18
`
`Zep Solar Inc. v. Westinghouse Solar Inc.,
`No. C 11-06493 JSW, 2012 WL 1293873 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2012) .......................................11
`
`FEDERAL STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(a)(1) ...............................................................................................................5, 7, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 102(b) ...................................................................................................................5, 7, 13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 112 ................................................................................................................................13
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(a) ..............................................................................................................................8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(b) .............................................................................................................................8
`
`35 U.S.C. § 271(c) ..............................................................................................................8, 9, 16, 17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 284 ................................................................................................................................17
`
`35 U.S.C. § 285 ..................................................................................................................................2
`
`Leahy-Smith America Invents Act (“AIA”), Pub. L. No. 112-29, 125 Stat. 284
`(2011) ...........................................................................................................................................5
`
`STATE STATUTES
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 ........................................................................................... 1, passim
`
`Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17208 .......................................................................................................18
`
`FEDERAL RULES
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ...........................................................................................................................20
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 11 ...............................................................................................................................2
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) ..................................................................................................10, 11, 12, 13
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d) .........................................................................................................................13
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f) .........................................................................................................................11
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 .............................................................................................................................13
`
`40972093.5
`
`
`
`-vi-
`MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 9 of 33 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2008
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 21 Filed 01/24/19 Page 10 of 31
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`(Continued)
`
`Page(s)
`
`FEDERAL REGULATIONS
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.14 (2008) ......................................................................................................................5
`
`37 C.F.R. § 1.19(b) .............................................................................................................................5
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`MPEP § 201.07 ..................................................................................................................................3
`
`
`
`
`40972093.5
`
`
`
`-vii-
`MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Case No. 3:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 10 of 33 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2008
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 21 Filed 01/24/19 Page 11 of 31
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES
`INTRODUCTION
`Konda Tech’s complaint alleges that Flex Logix infringes five patents purportedly
`assigned to Konda Tech, a company founded by Dr. Venkat Konda in 2007. See Dkt. 1
`(Complaint) at Counts 2-6, ¶ 11. Dr. Konda is the sole named inventor on each of the five
`asserted patents. See Complaint, Exs. 4-8. While the complaint offers few specifics, the
`complaint alleges that Konda Tech’s patents generally relate to “field-programmable gate array
`(‘FPGA’) routing fabric” and “interconnection networks technology.” See Complaint ¶ 11.
`Konda Tech also brings a state law claim for Unfair Business Practices under California’s Unfair
`Competition law (“UCL”) pursuant to California Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et
`seq. See Complaint, Count 1, ¶¶ 30-35.
`Konda Tech’s complaint fails to state a plausible claim for patent infringement, and its
`UCL claim is preempted by federal patent law and barred by the applicable statute of limitations.
`Because Konda Tech’s complaint is manifestly deficient in numerous respects, Konda Tech’s
`complaint should be dismissed in its entirety.
`First, three of the patents asserted by Konda Tech (specifically, U.S. Patent 8,898,611 (“the
`’611 patent”); U.S. Patent 9,529,958 (“the ’958 patent”); and U.S. Patent 10,050,904 (“the ’904
`patent”)) are invalid in view of one of Konda Tech’s own prior patent publications.1 The
`invalidity of these patents can be straightforwardly determined by a review of Konda Tech’s
`complaint in combination with Konda Tech’s own patent applications and patent publications,
`which are properly judicially noticeable at this stage of the proceedings. In brief, the disclosures
`of these three patents were made publicly available more than one year prior to the earliest
`possible priority date for each patent, rendering each of the patents indisputably invalid. There is
`no subject matter that each of the patents could properly claim that was not publicly disclosed
`more than one year before each of the patent’s earliest possible priority date. Flex Logix submits
`
`
`
` 1
`
` Flex Logix contends that each of the five asserted patents is invalid but has limited its motion to
`three of these patents at this time, because a mere review of the complaint and judicially
`noticeable materials unequivocally demonstrates the invalidity of those three patents.
`Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`-1-
`MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 11 of 33 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2008
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 21 Filed 01/24/19 Page 12 of 31
`
`
`
`this is a circumstance in which this Court may properly dismiss Konda Tech’s patent infringement
`claims based on invalidity of the asserted patents at this stage in the litigation. No further
`proceedings are necessary in order to permit this Court to reach the conclusion that each of these
`patents is invalid. There is no reason to delay—this Court can and should dismiss Counts Three,
`Four, and Six of Konda Tech’s complaint due to the invalidity of each of the asserted patents.2
`Second, Konda Tech makes no attempt to plead a plausible claim for infringement under
`Twomby and Iqbal with respect to any of the five asserted patents. Among Konda Tech’s
`infringement allegations’ numerous deficiencies, Konda Tech fails to identify any accused
`products, provides no comparison of any allegedly infringing products to the claims of the asserted
`patents, and relies on mere (and incomplete) recitations of statutory language instead of specific
`factual allegations. Konda Tech’s patent infringement claims are woefully inadequate and should
`be dismissed.
`Third, Konda Tech’s UCL claim asserts that “Flex Logix’s patent infringement, and other
`tortious behavior, as described above and below in the causes of action listed in this Complaint, all
`constitute unfair and unlawful business practices pursuant to California Business & Professions
`Code Section 17200 et seq.” Complaint ¶ 31. However, the only “tortious” behavior alleged by
`Konda Tech in its complaint is patent infringement. Because Konda Tech’s UCL claim is based
`on and coextensive with its allegations of patent infringement, it is preempted by federal patent
`law, and should be dismissed in its entirety. Moreover, the face of the complaint makes clear that
`to the extent any of portion of this claim is not preempted by federal patent law, it is barred by the
`4-year statute of limitations applicable to such claims.
`Finally, Konda Tech’s complaint does not purport to state a claim for fraud. Nonetheless,
`the complaint refers to purported “subterfuge and deceit” by Flex Logix’s founders, Drs. Dejan
`Markovic and Cheng Wang, and references their alleged “fraudulent credibility” in FPGA
`
`
` 2
`
` Flex Logix has informed Konda Tech’s counsel of the clear invalidity of these patents (as well as
`of the two other asserted patents) and reserves the right to seek relief pursuant to Federal Rule of
`Civil Procedure 11, a determination that this case is exceptional under 35 U.S.C. § 285, and
`recovery of its attorneys’ fees based on Konda Tech’s continued assertion of its patent
`infringement claims.
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 12 of 33 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2008
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 21 Filed 01/24/19 Page 13 of 31
`
`
`
`technology. Complaint ¶ 26. The complaint’s references to fraud are irrelevant to the claims pled
`and scandalous and in view of the complaint’s failure to plead any alleged fraud with particularity.
`The complaint’s references to fraud should be stricken and/or dismissed.
`SUMMARY OF COMPLAINT AND FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`Flex Logix provides the following brief summary of Konda Tech’s complaint as well as
`additional factual background based on publicly available patent applications and publications,
`which this Court may take judicial notice of in considering this motion. See Request for Judicial
`Notice (filed currently herewith) (“RJN”); see also Argument Section 1.B, infra.
`KONDA TECH’S ALLEGATIONS OF INFRINGEMENT OF THE ’611 PATENT,
`I.
`THE ’958 PATENT, AND THE ’904 PATENT
`The Asserted Patents and Their Relationship to Each Other
`A.
`Konda Tech alleges that Flex Logix infringes the ’611 patent, the ’958 patent, and the ’904
`patent. Complaint, Count 3 (’611 patent), Count 4 (’958 patent), Count 6 (’904 patent); Complaint
`Exs. 5, 6, 8. All three of these patents belong to the same family. The ’904 patent is a
`continuation of the ’958 patent, which in turn is a continuation of the ’611 patent. See id. (Related
`U.S. Application Data). Because the ’958 and ’904 patents are continuations of the ’611 patent,
`all three patents must necessarily contain the same disclosures. See, e.g., Tech. Licensing Corp. v.
`Videotek, Inc., 545 F.3d 1316, 1321 n.2 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (“[A] continuation contains the same
`disclosure found in an earlier application.”); Applied Materials, Inc. v. Advanced Semiconductor
`Materials Am., Inc., 98 F.3d 1563, 1579 (Fed. Cir. 1996) (“By definition, a continuation adds no
`new matter and is akin to an amendment of a pending application.”) (Archer, J., concurring);
`MPEP § 201.07 (“A continuation application is an application for the invention(s) disclosed in a
`prior- filed copending nonprovisional application . . . . The disclosure presented in the
`continuation must not include any subject matter which would constitute new matter if submitted
`as an amendment to the parent application.”).3
`
`
`
` 3
`
` Accordingly, while the ’958 and ’904 patents purport on their face to cross-reference and
`incorporate by reference additional patent applications in addition to those listed in the ’611
`Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`-3-
`MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Page 13 of 33 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2008
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 21 Filed 01/24/19 Page 14 of 31
`
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Each of the ’611, ’958, and ’904 patents ultimately claims priority to U.S. Provisional
`Patent Applications 61/252,603 (“the ’603 provisional application”) and 61/252,609 (“the ’609
`provisional application”). See Complaint Exs. 5, 6, 8 (Related U.S. Application Data). The ’611
`patent is characterized as a continuation-in-part with respect to the ’603 and ’609 provisional
`applications.4 See Complaint Ex. 5 (’611 patent) at 1:8-21. Both the ’603 and ’609 provisional
`applications were filed on October 16, 2009, which is the earliest priority date possible for each of
`the ’611, ’958, and ’904 patents. See Complaint Exs. 5, 6, 8 (Related U.S. Application Data).
` The disclosures of the ’611, ’958, and ’904 patents correspond directly to the two
`provisional applications to which they claim priority. For example, Figures 1-7 of the ’611, ’958,
`and ’904 patents (Complaint Exs. 5, 6, 8) match Figures 1-7 of the ’603 provisional (RJN Ex. 2);
`and Figures 8-10 of the ’611, ’958, and ’904 patents match Figures 1-3 of the ’609 provisional
`(RJN Ex. 3). The text describing Figures 1-10 of the ’611 ’958, and ’904 patents is also the same
`as that in the corresponding provisional applications with appropriate updating to reflect different
`numbering of Figures 8-10 in the ’611 patent, which were Figures 1-3 in the ’609 provisional.
`The Publication of the Konda PCT
`B.
`International PCT Application No. WO 2008/109756 A1 (“the Konda PCT”) incorporates
`by reference, among other patent applications, U.S. Provisional Patent Applications 60/984,724
`(“the ’724 provisional application”) and 61/018,494 (“the ’494 provisional application”). RJN Ex.
`1 (Konda PCT) at 2:18-25. By incorporating the ’724 and ’494 provisional applications by
`reference, the Konda PCT includes the entirety of the disclosure of those provisional applications.
`See Telemac Cellular Corp. v. Topp Telecom, Inc., 247 F.3d 1316, 1329 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (“When
`a document is ‘incorporated by reference’ into a host document, such as a patent, the referenced
`document becomes effectively part of the host document as if it were explicitly contained therein.”
`(citation omitted)).
`
`
`patent, any such incorporation by reference cannot be used to introduce any new matter over and
`above that contained in the ’611 patent.
`4 This is because Figures 11A1-11A4 of the ’611 patent, and the corresponding description of
`those Figures, were not included in either of the ’603 and ’609 provisional applications. However,
`as set forth below, they were included in the Konda PCT.
`
`-4-
`MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO STRIKE
`
`Case No. 5:18-cv-07581-LHK
`
`
`
`Page 14 of 33 IPR2020-00262
`
`VENKAT KONDA EXHIBIT 2008
`
`

`

`Case 5:18-cv-07581-LHK Document 21 Filed 01/24/19 Page 15 of 31
`
`
`
`The Konda PCT was published on September 12, 2008. RJN Ex. 1 (Konda PCT) (noting
`an