Paper No. 7
`April 15, 2021
`
`IPR2021-00633
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`XILINX, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`FG SRC LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00633
`Patent No. 7,149,867
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER FG SRC LLC’S
`OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`AND
`MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`April 15, 2021
`
`IPR2021-00633
`UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`XILINX, LLC,
`Petitioner,
`v.
`FG SRC LLC,
`Patent Owner.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`IPR2021-00633
`Patent No. 7,149,867
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PATENT OWNER FG SRC LLC’S
`OPPOSITION TO PETITIONER’S MOTION FOR JOINDER
`AND
`MOTION FOR ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`April 15, 2021
`Petitioner submitted a Motion for Joinder to Intel Corporation, v. FG
`
`SRC LLC, IPR2021-01449 (the “Intel IPR”) along with its Petition in the
`
`present IPR which mirrors the petition in the Intel IPR. Petitioner’s Motion for
`
`Joinder should be denied, and separately, its Petition should be dismissed as
`
`time barred. In the alternative, Patent Owner requests authorization to file a
`
`narrowly tailored Motion for Additional Discovery to fully develop the record
`
`before the Board regarding the RPI relationship between time barred party
`
`Amazon and current petitioner Xilinx.
`
`1. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
`Xilinx’s petition concerns U. S. No. 7,149,867 (“’867 patent”).
`1.
`
`Xilinx has previously filed a petition for IPR of U. S. No. 9,153,311 (“’311
`
`patent”). Xilinx has been well-aware of these patents for a long time.
`
`2.
`
`On or around February 22, 2013, counsel for SRC Computers sent
`
`a notice letter to Xilinx advising that “Our client has recently become aware of
`
`Xilinx’ Zynq-7000 All Programmable SoC devices which are stated to integrate
`
`an ARM® dual-core Cortex™-A9 CPU as an application processor unit in
`
`conjunction with programmable logic. From the information presently
`
`available to us, these devices may possibly involve SRC Computers’ patented
`
`technology.”
`
`3.
`
`Between July 2015 and November 2015, SRC Computers and
`
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`April 15, 2021
`Xilinx communicated regarding a potential acquisition by Xilinx of SRC
`
`Computers and/or its intellectual property (“IP”). Persons involved on behalf
`
`of Xilinx included Greer Person, Ron Satori, Nate Gazdik, Michael White, and
`
`Ivo Bolsens. Persons involved on behalf of SRC Computers included Brandon
`
`Freeman and Jon Huppenthal.
`
`4.
`
`A third party, 3LP Advisors, LLC (“3LP”), assisted with
`
`discussions on behalf of SRC Computers.
`
`5.
`
`To assist Xilinx in reviewing SRC Computers’ patent portfolio,
`
`3LP provided Xilinx with a list of SRC Computers’ IP, including the ’867
`
`patent and, on information and belief, the ’311 patent, around Oct. 1, 2015.
`
`6.
`
`After breakdown of the negotiations, the ’867 patent and the ’311
`
`patent were asserted against Xilinx’s customers Amazon.com, Inc. and
`
`Amazon Web Services, Inc. (“Amazon”) in: SRC Labs, LLC et al., v. Amazon
`
`Web Services, Inc., et al., No. 1:17-cv-01227 (E.D. Virginia), filed Oct. 18,
`
`2017; SRC Labs, LLC et al., v. Amazon Web Services, Inc., et al., No. 2:18-cv-
`
`00317 (W.D. Washington), filed Feb. 26, 2018; and SRC Labs, LLC et al. v.
`
`Amazon Web Services, Inc. et al., Case No. 2:17-00547 (E.D. Virginia), filed
`
`Oct. 18, 2017.1 In each of these cases, Patent Owner alleged that Amazon’s
`
`
`1 Case No. 2-17-00547 was consolidated with Case No. 1-17-cv-01227, and the
`consolidated case was transferred to the Western District of Washington in Case No.
`2:18-cv-00317 on February 26, 2018.
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`April 15, 2021
`products infringe the ’867 patent and the ’311 patent based on its usage of
`
`Xilinx FPGA products. Upon information and belief, Xilinx has closely
`
`cooperated with Amazon in its defense.
`
`7.
`
`Patent Owner’s complaints against Amazon included—as Exhibit
`
`G—a publicly available claim chart demonstrating how the Amazon
`
`Defendants’ product EC2 F1 Instance infringed the ’867 patent based on its
`
`usage of a Xilinx UltraScale+ FPGA. Patent Owner’s complaints against
`
`Amazon also included—as Exhibit J—a publicly-available claim chart showing
`
`how the Amazon Defendants’ product EC2 F1 Instance infringed the ’311
`
`patent based on its usage of a Xilinx UltraScale+ FPGA.
`
`8.
`
`On or around January 8, 2018, SRC Labs, LLC served Xilinx with
`
`a subpoena in the Amazon Case. That subpoena explicitly referenced the ’867
`
`patent and the ’311 patent.
`
`9.
`
`Upon information and belief, Amazon and Xilinx then cooperated
`
`in their defense against and attack on Patent Owner’s intellectual property. In
`
`a divide-and-conquer strategy, Xilinx filed an IPR captioned Xilinx, Inc. v.
`
`Saint Regis Mohawk Tribe et al., IPR2018-01395 on July 13, 2018 challenging
`
`the ’311 patent which had not yet been directly asserted against Xilinx (“Xilinx
`
`’311 petition”). Amazon followed with an IPR captioned Amazon.com, Inc., et
`
`al., v. St. Regis Mohawk Tribe et al., IPR2019-00103 on October 19, 2018
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`April 15, 2021
`challenging the ’867 patent (“Amazon ’867 petition”). In its petition, Xilinx
`
`noted the complaint against the Amazon Defendants and admitted that
`
`“Amazon and Xilinx have a customer/supplier relationship” and that “Xilinx
`
`UltraScale+ FPGAs and its Vivado Design Suite are referenced in the SRC
`
`Labs complaint . . . .” The Xilinx ’311 petition was denied on Jan. 23, 2019.
`
`IPR2018-01395, Paper No. 17. Similarly, the Amazon petition challenging the
`
`’867 patent was denied on May 10, 2019. IPR2019-00103, Paper No. 22.
`
`10. Upon information and belief, Amazon and Xilinx have at least one
`
`indemnity agreement relating to the Xilinx products alleged of infringing the
`
`’867 patent and the ’311 patent.
`
`2. DISCRETIONAL DENIAL OF JOINDER IS JUSTIFIED
`The discretionary nature of joinder is designed to avoid gamesmanship
`
`and prejudice to the Patent Owner. Proppant Express Investments, LLC, et al.,
`
`v. Oren Tech., LLC, IPR2018-00914, Paper 38 at 11 (PTAB, March 13, 2019).
`
`Congress’ intent in establishing the AIA proceedings was “to provide a
`
`cheaper, faster alternative to district court litigation” that could “be used instead
`
`of, rather than in addition to, civil litigation.” 157 Cong. Rec. S1363 (daily ed.
`
`Mar. 8, 2011) (statement of Sen. Schumer).
`
`Particularly when a time bar under 35 U.S.C. § 315(b) exists, the Board
`
`will only exercise its discretion to grant joinder under § 315(c) in limited
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`April 15, 2021
`circumstances. Proppant, IPR2018-00914, Paper 38 at 16. This narrow
`
`exercise may be justified where, for example, a patent owner has taken certain
`
`actions in a co-pending litigation (e.g., the late addition of newly asserted
`
`claims). Id. at 19. No such action has been taken here by the Patent Owner.
`
`Rather, Petitioner seeks to circumvent the § 315(b) time bar through its Petition
`
`and Motion for Joinder to the Intel IPR. Patent Owner served its patent
`
`infringement complaint on Amazon in October 2017. Petitioner’s Motion for
`
`Joinder thus comes years after the §315(b) IPR deadline.
`
`A. PETITIONER IS A TIME-BARRED RPI OR PRIVY TO
`AMAZON
`Amazon should have been listed as an RPI or privy to Xilinx’s ’867
`
`petition. That would have time-barred the petition. To avoid this outcome,
`
`Amazon and Xilinx appear to have been cooperating to take multiple shots at
`
`Patent Owner’s intellectual property. Determining an RPI relationship requires
`
`“a flexible approach... with an eye toward determining whether the non-party
`
`is a clear beneficiary that has a preexisting, established relationship with the
`
`petitioner.” Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX Corp., 897 F.3d 1336,
`
`1351 (Fed. Cir. 2018) (“AIT”) (emphasis added); Ventex Co., Ltd. v. Columbia
`
`Sportswear N.A. Inc., IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 at 6 (PTAB Jan. 24, 2019).
`
`Close analysis of the interconnected relationship between Amazon and Xilinx
`
`is required in this case to determine whether or not they are operating
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`April 15, 2021
`independently in light of the circumstantial evidence to the contrary. The
`
`sophisticated coordination of Amazon and Xilinx’s efforts supports the
`
`conclusions that Amazon is an RPI.
`
`Privity between two parties is a separate inquiry that can be established
`
`by any one of a non-exhaustive list of factors including: “(1) an agreement
`
`between the parties to be bound; (2) pre-existing substantive legal relationships
`
`between the parties; (3) adequate representation by the named party; (4) the
`
`non-party’s control of the prior litigation; (5) where the non-party acts as a
`
`proxy for the named party to relitigate the same issues; and (6) where special
`
`statutory schemes foreclose successive litigation by the non-party (e.g.,
`
`bankruptcy and probate).” Taylor v. Sturgell, 533 U.S. 880, 894-94 (2008);
`
`Ventex, IPR2017-00651, Paper 148 at 12. Amazon and Xilinx’s coordinated
`
`behavior supports the presumption that a pre-existing substantive legal
`
`relationship exists between the parties based on the supply contract with likely
`
`indemnity provisions. Amazon and Xilinx’s coordinated effort makes it highly
`
`likely that Xilinx is attempting to assume the role of non-party Amazon as a
`
`proxy to relitigate the same issues Amazon did and could have previously
`
`raised. See RPX Corp. v. Applications in Internet Time, LLC, IPR2015-0170,
`
`Paper 128 at 30-38 (PTAB Oct. 2, 2020).
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`April 15, 2021
`B. JOINDER WOULD INTRODUCE NEW ISSUES INTO THE
`INTEL IPR
`A motion for joinder should (1) set forth reasons why joinder is
`
`appropriate; (2) identify any new grounds of unpatentability asserted in the
`
`petition; (3) explain what impact, if any, joinder would have on the trial
`
`schedule for the existing review; and (4) address specifically how briefing and
`
`discovery may be simplified. See Kyocera Corp. v. Softview LLC, Case
`
`IPR2013-00004, slip op. at 4 (PTAB Apr. 24, 2013) (Paper 15).
`
`Although Xilinx asserts that is has filed a “substantively identical
`
`petition and concurrent request for joinder in an understudy role” only,
`
`allowing Xilinx to join the Intel IPR would raise substantial new issues
`
`regarding whether Xilinx is a RPI and/or privy of Amazon. Under similar
`
`circumstances, the Board denied a motion for joinder. See Unified Patents Inc.,
`
`v. C-Cation Technologies, LLC, IPR2015-01045, Paper 15 at 7 (“if we institute
`
`review based on the Petition and grant Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder, the real
`
`party-in-interest issue potentially could sidetrack the joined proceeding,
`
`shifting the focus away from the substantive issue to be addressed—the
`
`patentability of claims 1, 3, and 4 of the ’883 patent.”). The same reasoning
`
`applies here. Due to the overarching RPI issue, “joinder . . . could complicate,
`
`rather than simplify, briefing and discovery in the [PRIMARY] IPR”). Id.
`
`Here, the uncanny cooperation displayed in Amazon and Xilinx’s divide-and-
`7
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`April 15, 2021
`conquer approach of cooperative inter partes proceedings supports that
`
`additional RPI/privy issues must be explored.
`
`3. IN THE ALTERNATIVE, THE BOARD SHOULD GRANT
`ADDITIONAL DISCOVERY ON THE RPI ISSUE
`Alternatively, Patent Owner proposes discovery that is narrowly tailored
`
`to two requests for production of non-public documents relating to Xilinx’s
`
`supplier contract with the Amazon and a narrow category of communications
`
`with Amazon about any matters relating to the ’867 and ’311 patents. As
`
`discussed below, an order requiring Xilinx to produce this additional discovery
`
`meets the Garmin factors and will aid in demonstrating that institution of this
`
`IPR is barred by 35 U.S.C. §315(b).
`
`A. DOCUMENTS REQUESTED
`Patent Owner requests discovery that goes to the status of Xilinx as a
`
`RPI and/or privy of Amazon. This evidence directly pertains to this IPR
`
`petition regarding the ’867 patent because: (1) Xilinx failed to name all RPIs in
`
`its petition, as required by 37 C.F.R. §42.8(b)(1); and (2) this IPR petition is
`
`time-barred by 35 U.S.C. §315(b) because RPI Amazon was served with a
`
`complaint for patent infringement more than a year prior to the filing of this
`
`petition. Specifically, Patent Owner seeks the following documents: (1) the
`
`supplier contract[s] and any amendments or supplements thereto between
`
`Amazon and Xilinx concerning the products specifically identified and accused
`
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`April 15, 2021
`in the Amazon litigations; (2) any communications between Amazon and
`
`Xilinx relating to the ’867 or ’311 patents, the products specifically identified
`
`and accused in the Amazon litigations between Oct. 18, 2017 (filing date of the
`
`first Amazon suit) and Mar. 15, 2021 (filing date of the current Petition); and
`
`(3) any confidentiality, joint defense, or indemnification agreements related to
`
`the Amazon litigations. The requested discovery is intended to be narrowly-
`
`tailored to documents going to Xilinx’ status as a RPI and/or privy of Amazon.
`
`B. THE INTERESTS OF JUSTICE SUPPORT PRODUCTION
`The Board applies a five factor “necessary in the interest of justice”
`
`standard when deciding whether to grant additional discovery. See Garmin
`
`Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC, IPR2012-00001, Paper No. 26, slip op.
`
`at 6–7 (PTAB Mar. 5, 2013). In that context, the Consolidated Trial Practice
`
`Guide (November 2019) states that discovery is frequently sought regarding
`
`identifying RPIs. In particular, discovery as to RPI status is appropriate where
`
`it is “narrowly tailored to communications ‘regarding the preparation or filing
`
`of the . . . IPRs.’” Id. at 28.
`
`i. There is more than a possibility or mere allegation that
`the requested discovery will yield useful information.
`Amazon’s and Xilinx’s actions strongly indicate that: (1) they have a
`
`supplier contract which likely includes indemnity provisions concerning the
`
`products accused of infringement in the Amazon litigations; (2) the ’867 patent
`
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`April 15, 2021
`at issue in this IPR Petition was asserted in in the Amazon litigation and applies
`
`to products made by Xilinx that are being used by its customer, Amazon; and
`
`(3) based on its commonality of interests with Amazon, Xilinx filed an IPR
`
`against the ’311 patent (which was denied) even though it had not been asserted
`
`against Xilinx, while Amazon, on the other hand, filed a corresponding IPR
`
`against the ’867 patent (which was also denied). Xilinx would have had no
`
`reason to challenge either the ’311 patent or the current ’867 patent other than
`
`to comply with its contractual obligations, to protect its products supplied to
`
`Amazon, and to avoid adverse impacts from rulings in the Amazon litigations.
`
`These facts fully support production of the relevant supplier agreement(s) and
`
`the requested communications between Amazon and Xilinx under the RPI and
`
`privity precedents of the Federal Circuit and the Board. Patent Owner’s
`
`discovery requests, therefore, are “necessary in the interest of justice.” 35
`
`U.S.C. §316(a)(5).
`
`Importantly, Patent Owner does not have the burden of prove that it will
`
`ultimately prevail on its § 315(b) argument. Instead, Patent Owner’s only
`
`burden is to show that the requested discovery is “favorable in substantive value
`
`to a contention of the party moving for discovery,” not just “relevant” or
`
`“admissible.” Garmin, IPR2012- 00001, Paper No. 26, at 7.
`
`The law regarding RPI has drastically changed recently. This change
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`April 15, 2021
`began with the Federal Circuit’s ruling that “Congress intended for [RPI] to
`
`have an expansive formulation.” Applications in Internet Time, LLC v. RPX
`
`Corp., 897 F.3d 1336, 1350 (Fed. Cir. 2018). This expansive formulation is
`
`described as: “the focus of the real-party-in-interest inquiry is on the
`
`patentability of the claims challenged in the IPR petition, bearing in mind who
`
`will benefit from having those claims canceled or invalidated.” Id. at 1348
`
`(emphasis added). As the Board held in its precedential Ventex decision, this
`
`“beneficiary” analysis is key to the RPI inquiry. See Ventex Co. v. Columbia
`
`Sportswear N. Am., Inc., IPR2017- 00651, Paper No. 148, at 7-8 (PTAB Jan.
`
`24, 2019) (finding a RPI relationship where a supplier and customer had
`
`“mutual interest in the continuing commercial and financial success of each
`
`other” and the customer was a “clear beneficiary” of the IPR). Here, there is
`
`no doubt that Xilinx and Amazon have a specific contractual relationship
`
`concerning products at issue in the Amazon litigations, and that the supplier
`
`contract creates a commonality of interest in invalidation of the ’867 patent
`
`challenged in this Petition. This likely explains the coordinated divide-and-
`
`conquer approach Amazon and Xilinx have taken in their distributed attacks on
`
`the ’867 and ’311 patents.
`
`On privity, “‘[t]he legislative history [of the Leahy-Smith America
`
`Invents Act (‘AIA’)] . . . lends support to the conclusion that ‘privity’ in §
`
`
`
`11
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`April 15, 2021
`315(b) should be given its common law meaning.’” Power Integrations, Inc.
`
`v. Semiconductor Components Indus. LLC, 926 F.3d 1306, 1315 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2019) (quoting WesternGeco LLC v. ION Geophysical Corp., 889 F.3d 1308,
`
`1315 (Fed. Cir. 2018)). “The general definition of privity is ‘[t]he connection
`
`or relationship between two parties, each having a legally recognized interest
`
`in the same subject matter (such as a transaction, proceeding, or piece of
`
`property).’” Applications in Internet Time, 897 F.3d at 1359 (quoting Privity,
`
`Black’s Law Dictionary (10th ed. 2014)). The Supreme Court in Taylor v.
`
`Sturgell, 553 U.S. 880, 894-95 (2008), provided a list of non-exhaustive factors
`
`to consider for a privity analysis (the “Taylor Factors”), including:
`
`(1) an agreement between the parties to be bound;
`(2) pre-existing substantive legal relationships between the parties;
`(3) adequate representation by the named party;
`(4) the non-party’s control of the prior litigation;
`(5) where the non-party acts as a proxy for the named party to relitigate
`the same issues; and
`(6) where special statutory schemes foreclose successive litigation by the
`non-party (e.g., bankruptcy and probate).
`Importantly, the Board in the precedential Ventex decision held that
`
`“[a]nalysis under any one of the factors can support a finding of privity.”
`
`Ventex, IPR2017- 00651, Paper 148, at 12 (citing Applications in Internet Time,
`
`897 F.3d at 1360, 1363 (emphasis added)). Further, the Federal Circuit held in
`
`Power Integrations that RPI and privity relationships must be evaluated up to
`
`the time of institution. 926 F.3d at 1314. Here, the supplier contract between
`12
`
`
`
`
`
`Amazon and Xilinx alone meets
`
`Paper No. 7
`April 15, 2021
`the “pre-existing substantive
`legal
`
`relationships between the parties” standard in the Taylor Factors, which under
`
`Ventex is sufficient to establish a privity relationship. Xilinx should not be
`
`permitted to deny privity without disclosing its supplier agreement[s] to Patent
`
`Owner and the Board. To do so would force Patent Owner and the Board to
`
`accept Xilinx’s factual assertions and legal conclusions without any ability to
`
`test or verify them. Similarly, Patent Owner believes that the specific requested
`
`communications between Amazon and Xilinx will go to the extent of Amazon’s
`
`coordination and common efforts with Xilinx, which again goes to several of
`
`the Taylor Factors, including the proxy factor. In view of all this, it is not
`
`credible for Xilinx to assert that production of the supplier agreement and the
`
`requested communications will not be useful here.
`
`Finally, the requested discovery is useful because it goes to the threshold
`
`question of whether the IPR Petitions are time-barred. Section § 315(b)
`
`provides:
`
`An inter partes review may not be instituted if the petition requesting
`the proceeding is filed more than 1 year after the date on which the
`petitioner, real party in interest, or privy of the petitioner is served
`with a complaint alleging infringement of the patent.
`Here, if Amazon is a RPI or privy of Xilinx, since Amazon was sued for
`
`infringement of the ’867 patent and served more than a year before the IPR
`
`Petition was filed, institution is barred based on the express and unambiguous
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`April 15, 2021
`
`language of § 315(b). Thus, the first Garmin factor is met here.
`
`ii. Patent Owner Does Not Seek To Uncover Any Party’s
`Litigation Position
`Patent Owner’s request for production does not seek any party’s
`
`litigation positions. Patent Owner’s request for the specific communications is
`
`focused on whether those communications took place, because their existence
`
`goes to the RPI and/or privy relationship with Amazon.
`
`iii. The Requested Documents Are Not Public
`Patent Owner is not able to obtain the requested information through any
`
`other reasonable means.
`
`iv. Patent Owner’s Instructions Are Easily Understandable
`Patent Owner’s requests are straightforward. Patent Owner seeks only:
`
`(1) the supplier contract[s] and any amendments or supplements thereto
`between Amazon and Xilinx concerning the Xilinx UltraScale+
`FPGA and Vivado Design Suite;
`(2) any communications between Amazon and Xilinx relating to the
`’867 or ’311 patents, or the products specifically identified and
`accused in the Amazon litigations (i.e., the Xilinx UltraScale+ FPGA
`and Vivado Design Suite) between Oct. 18, 2017 (the filing date of
`the first Amazon suit) and March 15, 2021 (the filing date of the
`current Petition); and
`(3) any confidentiality, joint defense, or indemnification agreements
`related to the Amazon litigations.
`These instructions are clear and easily understandable and, if necessary,
`
`Patent Owner can work with Xilinx to provide any requested clarification.
`
`
`
`14
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`April 15, 2021
`v. Patent Owner’s Requests Are Narrowly Tailored And
`Not Overly Burdensome
`Patent Owner’s requested discovery is limited to the relevant contracts,
`
`and particular communications regarding the ’867 and ’311 petitions limited to
`
`a particular relevant timeframe. The narrowly tailored nature of this discovery
`
`ensures that Xilinx will not suffer an undue burden in complying with the
`
`requests. These instructions are very limited in scope and, if necessary, Patent
`
`Owner can work with Xilinx to refine the specifically requested information.
`
`C. TIMING OF PRODUCTION
`Patent Owner requests that Xilinx be ordered to produce the relevant
`
`materials in time to allow Patent Owner to include its analysis thereof in its
`
`patent owner preliminary response on June 25, 2021.
`
`4. CONCLUSION
`For the above reasons, Xilinx’s Motion for Joinder should be denied.
`
`Alternatively, Patent Owner requests additional discovery to allow Patent
`
`Owner to develop a complete record of the relationship between time-barred,
`
`non-party Amazon and Petitioner Xilinx for the Board.
`
`Date: April 15, 2021
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jay P. Kesan /
`Jay P. Kesan, Reg. No. 37,488
`jkesan@dimuro.com
`DIMUROGINSBERG, PC
` DGKEYIP GROUP
`
`
`
`
`/Ari Rafilson /
`
`
`
`Ari Rafilson, Reg. No. 58,693
`arafilson@shorechan.com
`SHORE CHAN, LLP
`901 Main Street, Suite 3300
`
`15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`1750 Tyson’s Blvd., Suite 1500
`Tysons Corner, VA 22102
`Telephone: (703) 289-5118
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`April 15, 2021
`
`Dallas, TX 75202
`Telephone: (214) 593-9110
`
`Attorneys for Patent Owner
`FG SRC LLC
`
`16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Paper No. 7
`April 15, 2021
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.6(e)(4) and 42.25(b), the undersigned certifies that on
`
`April 15, 2021, a complete copy of Patent Owner FG SRC LLC’s Opposition to
`
`Petitioner’s Motion for Joinder and Motion for Additional Discovery 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:
`
`David Hoffman
`Kenneth W. Darby
`Fish & Richardson P.C.
`3200 RBC Plaza, 60 South Sixth Street
`Minneapolis, MN 55402
`
`
`
`Dated: April 15, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/Jay P. Kesan /
`Jay P. Kesan
`Reg. No. 37,488
`
`
`17
`
`
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
