UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 16
`March 16, 2021
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`FG SRC LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01449
`Patent No. 7,149,867
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER EXHIBITS 1003, 1004
`AND 1005
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 16
`March 16, 2021
`
`INTEL CORPORATION,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`FG SRC LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2020-01449
`Patent No. 7,149,867
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS TO PETITIONER EXHIBITS 1003, 1004
`AND 1005
`
`
`
`
`
`LIST OF EXHIBITS
`
`2004
`
`2005
`
`2006
`
`2007
`2008
`
`Exhibit No. Descriptions
`Declaration of Dr. Vojin Oklobdzija
`2001
`Cray, Britannica Online Encyclopedia
`2002
`Declaration of Brandon Freeman dated 10/25/18
`2003
`SRC Labs LLC and Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe v. Microsoft
`Corporation, No. 2:18-cv-00321-JLR, Dkt. 125 (W.D. Wash. Oct.
`25, 2018)
`Plaintiff’s Original Complaint For Patent Infringement in FG SRC
`LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00315-ADA (W.D. Texas), filed
`April 24, 2020
`Plaintiff’s First Amended Complaint For Patent Infringement in
`FG SRC LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00315-ADA (W.D.
`Texas), filed April 24, 2020
`Declaration of Mark Wollgast dated 09/10/18
`Xilinx, Inc. v. Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe, IPR2018-0195
`COTS Journal, UAVs Lead Push for Embedded Supercomputing
`Press Release: SRC Computers Chosen by Lockheed Martin for
`U.S. Army Program
`Declaration of Henning Schmidt
`Declaration of Henning Schmidt, Exhibit A, IEEE Xplore:
`Advanced Search
`Declaration of Henning Schmidt, Exhibit B, IEEE Xplore:
`Advanced Search Results
`Declaration Of Ryan Kastner, Ph.D. In Support Of FG SRC
`LLC’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in FG SRC LLC v. Intel
`Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00315-ADA (W.D. Texas), filed April 24,
`2020
`Peter McMahon, High Performance Reconfigurable Computing for
`Science and Engineering Applications (Thesis Oct. 2006).
`Caliga, Delivering Acceleration: The Potential for Increased HPC
`Application Performance Using Reconfigurable Logic
`D. A. Buell, D. Caliga, J. P. Davis, G. Quan, “The DARPA
`boolean equation benchmark on a reconfigurable computer,”
`Proceedings of the Military and Aerospace Programmable Logic
`Devices (MAPLD) Conference, Washington, DC, 8-10 September
`
`2009
`2009-1
`
`2009-2
`
`2010
`
`2011
`
`2012
`
`2013
`
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Exhibit No. Descriptions
`2004
`
`2014
`
`2015
`
`2016
`
`2017
`
`2018
`
`2019
`
`2020
`
`2021
`
`2022
`2023
`
`2024
`
`2025
`
`2026
`
`El-Araby, The Promise of High-Performance Reconfigurable
`Computing
`FG SRC LLC’s Opening Claim Construction Brief in FG SRC
`LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 6:20-cv-00315-ADA (W.D. Texas),
`filed April 24, 2020
`Kerr Machine Co. d/b/a Kerr Pumps v. Vulcan Industrial
`Holdings, LLC, No. 6:20-cv-00200, Text Order dated Aug. 2, 2020
`(W.D. Tex.)
`MultiMedia Content Mgmt LLC v. Dish Network L.L.C., No. 6:18-
`cv-00207, Dkt. 73 (W.D. Tex.)
`Solas OLED v. Dell Techs. Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00514, Text Order
`dated June 23, 2020
`Kerr Machine Co. v. Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC, No. 6:20-cv-
`200, Dkt. 28 (W.D. Tex. July 31, 2020)
`Kerr Machine Co. v. Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC, No. 6:20-cv-
`200, Dkt. 24 (W.D. Tex. June 14, 2020)
`Kerr Machine Co. v. Vulcan Indus. Holdings, LLC, No. 6:20-cv-
`200, Dkt. 12 (W.D. Tex., June 14, 2020)
`Email from J. Yi to Counsel (Aug. 3, 2020)
`FG SRC LLC v. Intel Corp., No. 1:20-cv-00834, Dkt. 48 (W.D.
`Tex. Nov. 23, 2020) (Amended Schedule)
`Continental Intermodal Group - Trucking LLC v. Sand Revolution
`LLC, No. 7:18-cv-00147, Text Order dated July 22, 2020 (W.D.
`Tex.)
`Solas OLED v. Dell Techs. Inc., No. 6:19-cv-00515, Text Order
`dated Jun. 23, 2020
`2019-07-11 - DirectStream MSFT - Huppenthal Declaration
`
`ii
`
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 42.2, Patent Owner FG SRC LLC (“Patent Owner”)
`
`hereby objects to exhibits submitted and relied on by Petitioner Intel Corporation
`
`(“Petitioner”) in its Petition and by the Board in its Institution Decision issued on
`
`March 3, 2021. See Paper 13. Patent Owner’s objections are being presented within
`
`10 business days of issuance of the Institution Decision and are therefore timely.
`
`See 37 C.F.R. § 42.2. As set forth further below, Patent Owner objects to Petitioner
`
`Exhibits 1003, 1004 and 1005 as not being properly authenticated as required by the
`
`Board’s rules and the Federal Rules of Evidence. 37 C.F.R. § 42.62; Fed. R. Evid.
`
`901.
`
`I.
`
`BACKGROUND
`In its Petition, Petitioner asserts three references, submitted as Exhibits 1003-
`
`1005, each of which is a non-patent reference that must qualify as a printed
`
`publication. Paper 1 at 10. Exhibit 1003 (“Zhang”) purports to be a paper entitled
`
`Architectural Adaptation for Application-Specific Locality Optimizations, the lead
`
`author of which was Xingbin Zhang. The Zhang reference was purportedly
`
`published in the Proceedings of the International Conference on Computer Design –
`
`VLSI in Computers and Processors (“VLSI ’97 Conference”). Id. Exhibit 1004
`
`(“Gupta”) purports to be a paper entitled Architectural Adaptation in AMRM
`
`Machines, the lead author of which is Rajesh Gupta. The Gupta reference was
`
`purportedly published in the Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Society Workshop
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`
`
`on VLSI 2000 (“VLSI ’00 Conference”). Id. Exhibit 1005 (“Chien”) purports to be
`
`a paper entitled MORPH: A System Architecture for Robust High Performance
`
`Using Customization (An NSF 100 TeraOps Point Design Study), the lead author of
`
`which is Andrew A. Chien. The Chien reference was purportedly published in the
`
`Proceedings of Frontiers ’96 – The Sixth Symposium on the Frontiers of Massively
`
`Parallel Computing (“Frontiers ’96 Conference”).
`
`For each reference, Petitioner relies on the testimony of Dr. Rajesh K. Gupta
`
`(Exhibit 1010) and Jacob Robert Munford (Exhibit 1012) to authenticate the
`
`reference. For each reference Dr. Gupta states that he “believe[s]” the reference was
`
`distributed at the particular conference, that he “understand[s]” the reference was
`
`made available on the IEEE Xplore website, and that it was published in a collection
`
`of conference proceedings in the relevant year. Exhibit 1010, ¶¶ 18-20 (regarding
`
`Chien), ¶¶ 21-23 (regarding Zhang), and ¶¶ 24-26 (regarding Gupta).
`
`Mr. Munford relies solely on a search of online records at various libraries
`
`using the full name of the conference to which the asserted reference pertains.
`
`Exhibit 1012, ¶¶ 15-20 (regarding Zhang), ¶¶ 21-26 (regarding Gupta), ¶¶ 27-32
`
`(regarding Chien). Mr. Munford did not state that he is familiar with the specific
`
`practices of any of the identified libraries and he did not review a physical copy of
`
`any reference at the libraries he searched. Id., ¶ 14.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`II. RULES GOVERNING AUTHENTICATION
`To satisfy the requirement of authenticating or identifying an item of
`
`evidence, the proponent must produce evidence sufficient to support a finding that
`
`the item is what the proponent claims it is. Fed. R. Evid. 901(a). Certain evidence
`
`can be “self-authenticating.” Fed. R. Evid. 902. For example, “ancient documents”
`
`are considered self-authenticating but only if each is “in a condition that creates no
`
`suspicion about its authenticity,” “was in a place where, if authentic, it would likely
`
`be,” and “is at least 20 years old when offered.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(b)(8).
`
`Petitioner’s evidence does not meet these standards.
`
`III. PATENT OWNER’S OBJECTIONS
`A. Exhibit 1003 (Zhang)
`
`Dr. Gupta does not state that he has first-hand knowledge that Exhibit 1003
`
`was actually distributed at the VLSI ’97 Conference. He states only that he
`
`“believes” it was distributed based on his general experience in attending
`
`conferences and on the “general practice” in the scientific and engineering
`
`community.” Exhibit 1010, ¶¶ 21-22. He does not state that the copy about which
`
`he testified was obtained by him from the IEEE Xplore website. He states only that
`
`he “understands” the reference was made available on the Xplore website. Id., ¶ 22.
`
`He asserts that the Zhang reference was published as part of the VLSI ’97
`
`Conference Proceedings and cites the page numbers where the reference appears.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`
`
`Id. He does not, however, state that he has personal knowledge that the copy of the
`
`reference about which he testified came from the published proceedings, such as
`
`from a copy that he himself owns or has in his possession.
`
`Mr. Munford admitted that he never viewed a physical copy of the Zhang
`
`reference that was supposedly located in the libraries he cited. Exhibit 1012, ¶ 14.
`
`Moreover, he located only the name of the conference proceedings in the library
`
`records. Id., ¶¶ 15-20.
`
`Accordingly, neither witness can confirm that Exhibit 1003 is what Petitioner
`
`purports it to be. They were apparently handed a copy of the reference by Petitioner
`
`or its counsel and told to testify about it without seeing or having any first-hand
`
`knowledge about where the reference came from, when it was placed there or when
`
`and under what circumstances the reference was obtained. Their testimony therefore
`
`cannot establish that Exhibit 1003 is what Petitioner claims it to be nor that it “was
`
`in a place where … it would likely be.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a), 901(b)(8). Petitioner
`
`offers no other testimony in support of authentication.
`
`Patent Owner therefore objects to Exhibit 1003 for lack of authenticity.
`
`B.
`
`Exhibit 1004 (Gupta)
`
`Dr. Gupta does not state that he has first-hand knowledge that Exhibit 1004
`
`was actually distributed at the VLSI ’00 Workshop. He states only that he “believes”
`
`it was distributed based on his general experience in attending conferences and on
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`the “general practice” in the scientific and engineering community.” Exhibit 1010,
`
`¶¶ 24-25. He does not state that the copy about which he testified was obtained by
`
`him from the IEEE Xplore website. He states only that he “understands” the
`
`reference was made available on the Xplore website. Id., ¶ 25. He asserts that the
`
`Gupta reference was published as part of the VLSI ’97 Conference Proceedings and
`
`cites the page numbers where the reference appears. Id. He does not, however, state
`
`that he has personal knowledge that the copy of the reference about which he
`
`testified came from the published proceedings, such as from a copy that he himself
`
`owns or has in his possession.
`
`Mr. Munford admitted that he never viewed a physical copy of the Gupta
`
`reference that was supposedly located in the libraries he cited. Exhibit 1012, ¶ 14.
`
`Moreover, he located only the name of the conference proceedings in the library
`
`records. Id., ¶¶ 21-26.
`
`Accordingly, neither witness can confirm that Exhibit 1003 is what Petitioner
`
`purports it to be. They were apparently handed a copy of the reference by Petitioner
`
`or its counsel and told to testify about it without seeing or having any first-hand
`
`knowledge about where the reference came from, when it was placed there or when
`
`and under what circumstances the reference was obtained. Their testimony therefore
`
`cannot establish that Exhibit 1004 is what Petitioner claims it to be nor that it “was
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`in a place where … it would likely be.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a), 901(b)(8). Petitioner
`
`offers no other testimony in support of authentication.
`
`Patent Owner therefore objects to Exhibit 1004 for lack of authenticity.
`
`C. Exhibit 1005 (Chien)
`
`Dr. Gupta does not state that he has first-hand knowledge that Exhibit 1005
`
`was actually distributed at the Frontiers ’96 Conference. He states only that he
`
`“believes” it was distributed based on his general experience in attending
`
`conferences and on the “general practice” in the scientific and engineering
`
`community.” Exhibit 1010, ¶¶ 18-19. He does not state that the copy about which
`
`he testified was obtained by him from the IEEE Xplore website. He states only that
`
`he “understands” the reference was made available on the Xplore website. Id., ¶ 19.
`
`He asserts that the Gupta reference was published as part of the Frontiers ‘96
`
`Conference Proceedings and cites the page numbers where the reference appears.
`
`Id. He does not, however, state that he has personal knowledge that the copy of the
`
`reference about which he testified came from the published proceedings, such as
`
`from a copy that he himself owns or has in his possession.
`
`Mr. Munford admitted that he never viewed a physical copy of the Gupta
`
`reference that was supposedly located in the libraries he cited. Exhibit 1012, ¶ 14.
`
`Moreover, he located only the name of the conference proceedings in the library
`
`records. Id., ¶¶ 27-32.
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`
`
`Accordingly, neither witness can confirm that Exhibit 1003 is what Petitioner
`
`purports it to be. They were apparently handed a copy of the reference by Petitioner
`
`or its counsel and told to testify about it without seeing or having any first-hand
`
`knowledge about where the reference came from, when it was placed there or when
`
`and under what circumstances the reference was obtained. Their testimony therefore
`
`cannot establish that Exhibit 1005 is what Petitioner claims it to be nor that it “was
`
`in a place where … it would likely be.” Fed. R. Evid. 901(a), 901(b)(8). Petitioner
`
`offers no other testimony in support of authentication.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Patent Owner therefore objects to Exhibit 1005 for lack of authenticity.
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`/s/ Jay P. Kesan
`
`DiMuroGinsberg, PC-
`DGKeyIP Group
`Jay P. Kesan
`Reg. No. 37,488
`Cecil E. Key (admission pro hac vice
`pending)
`1750 Tysons Blvd., Suite 1500
`Tysons Corner, VA 22102
`Phone: 703-289-5118
`jkesan@dimuro.com
`ckey@dimuro.com
`
`Michael W. Shore
`mshore@shorechan.com
`Alfonso G. Chan
`achan@shorechan.com
`Ari B. Rafilson
`arafilson@shorechan.com
`
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SHORE CHAN DEPUMPO LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`Dallas, Texas 75202
`Telephone: 214-593-9110
`Facsimile: 214-593-9111
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.25(b), the undersigned certifies
`
`that on March 17, 2021, a complete copy of Patent Owner’s Objections to
`
`Petitioner Exhibits 1003, 1004 and 1005 was filed electronically through the
`
`Patent Trial and Appeal Board’s PTABE2E System and provided, via electronic
`
`service, to the Petitioner by serving the correspondence address of record as
`
`follows:
`
`Brian C. Nash, brian.nash@pillsburylaw.com
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`401 Congress Avenue, Ste. 1700
`Austin, Texas 78701
`
`Evan Finkel, evan.finkel@pillsburylaw.com
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`725 South Figueroa Street, Ste. 2800
`Los Angeles, CA 90017-5406
`
`
`Matthew W. Hindman, matthew.hindman@pillsburylaw.com
`PILLSBURY WINTHROP SHAW PITTMAN LLP
`2550 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Cecil E. Key
`Cecil E. Key
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9
`
`
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
