Case 2:12-mc-00244-JFC Document 975 Filed 01/27/15 Page 1 of 7
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`JOINT NOTICE REGARDING FEBRUARY 5, 2015
`
`CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE
`
`
`
`Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (“Maxim”), Branch Banking and Trust Company
`
`
`(“BB&T”) and JPMorgan Chase & Co. and JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A. (together, “Chase”),
`
`IN RE: MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS,
`INC.,
`MDL NO. 2354
`
`This Document Relates to: All Actions
`
`Master Docket
`Misc. No. 12-244
`MDL No. 2354
`
`CONTI, Chief Judge
`
`
`
`the sole parties remaining in this case, and Defendant Bank of the West (BOTW), which has a
`
`pending Motion for Attorneys’ Fees (ECF. No. 916), respectfully notify the Court that, pursuant
`
`to the Court’s Order dated December 19, 2014, counsel for Maxim, BB&T, Chase, and BOTW
`
`have conferred concerning the Case Management Conference set for Thursday, February 5, 2015
`
`at 2:00 PM EST, and hereby advise the Court as follows:
`
`1. The motions filed at ECF Nos. 916, 947 and 952 remain in dispute as to Maxim and
`
`BB&T and Maxim and BOTW (ECF No. 916 only), and are fully briefed for consideration at the
`
`February 5, 2015 conference. Counsel for Maxim, BB&T, and BOTW are prepared to present
`
`oral argument at that conference.
`
`2. As set forth in the joint motion filed at ECF No. 972, Maxim and Chase have agreed, in
`
`principle, to settle their respective claims in this case, and expect to execute a definitive
`
`agreement in the near future. In view of the anticipated settlement, Chase presently withdraws
`
`(and reserves its right to raise again if required) its participation in the motions filed at ECF Nos.
`
`916, 947 and 952.
`
`JPMC v. Maxim CBM2014-00180
`CHASE EX. 1019
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-mc-00244-JFC Document 975 Filed 01/27/15 Page 2 of 7
`
`3. No additional motions related to ECF Nos. 916, 947 and 952 are anticipated.
`
`BB&T’s Statement:
`
`4. With the settlement of the claims between Maxim and Chase, BB&T becomes the sole
`
`opposing party remaining in this litigation, which once comprised more than twenty-five
`
`different parties transferred to this Court “for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings”
`
`as a multi-district litigation (“MDL”). ECF No. 1 at 4; see also MDL 2354 ECF No. 104. Now
`
`that claim construction, fact and expert discovery in the BB&T case are complete, coordinated
`
`pretrial proceedings in this MDL have run their course, and remand to BB&T’s originating court
`
`is appropriate. See ECF No. 1 at 3 (“prompt remand after the common claims are construed and
`
`summary judgment addressed on certain common invalidity grounds may be appropriate.”).
`
`Accordingly, BB&T seeks leave to file a motion requesting that this Court recommend to the
`
`MDL Panel that its case be remanded for further proceedings to the Eastern District of North
`
`Carolina, where BB&T filed its declaratory judgment complaint.
`
`5. BB&T seeks remand to the Eastern District of North Carolina for all remaining
`
`proceedings, including Daubert, summary judgment and trial. There is no dispute that should
`
`the BB&T trial go forward, it should take place in North Carolina. See, e.g., Maxim Opp. 2d
`
`Mot. Stay [ECF No. 939] at 1 (discussing “return for these cases to their original districts for trial
`
`in early 2015”). For that reason, and because Fourth Circuit law will apply to the admissibility
`
`of expert testimony, the Daubert proceedings are best handled in North Carolina. See, e.g.,
`
`Ethicon, Inc. v. U.S. Surgical Corp., 135 F.3d 1456, 1465 (Fed. Cir. 1998). In addition, the
`
`North Carolina judge conducting trial in the BB&T case will address all the same issues that will
`
`be the subject of summary judgment motions, including non-infringement, exhaustion, invalidity
`
`and enforceability. Moreover, in November 2014 when initiating new lawsuits involving the
`
`
`
`2
`
`JPMC v. Maxim CBM2014-00180
`CHASE EX. 1019
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-mc-00244-JFC Document 975 Filed 01/27/15 Page 3 of 7
`
`same patented technology and accused products, Maxim itself chose a forum other than this
`
`Court. Maxim filed each of its six new lawsuits in the Western District of Texas, eschewing any
`
`judicial economies of remaining in this Court. BB&T’s choice of forum deserves no less
`
`consideration than Maxim’s decision to choose an alternative forum.
`
`Maxim’s Statement:
`
`6. BB&T’s proposed remand to the Eastern District of North Carolina for the remaining
`
`proceedings in this matter would be contrary to both the letter and spirit of the MDL Panel’s
`
`transfer order, which explicitly contemplates consolidation before this Court for all pretrial
`
`matters, and recognized that “centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and
`
`witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.” ECF No. 1 at 3. To the
`
`contrary: BB&T’s proposal to remove consideration of summary judgment and Daubert motions
`
`from the jurisdiction of this Court, which has invested substantial time in familiarizing itself with
`
`the patented technology, the accused products, and the key issues in dispute, would both promote
`
`inefficiency and defy common sense.
`
`7. As such, Maxim opposes BB&T’s attempt to remand this matter to the Eastern District of
`
`North Carolina. Should the Court be inclined to consider such a request, Maxim respectfully
`
`requests a briefing schedule be set so that Maxim can respond fully to BB&T’s motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: January 27, 2015
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Leslie M. Spencer
`Leslie M. Spencer (NY 3927050)
`Jeffrey K. Dicker (NY 4761896)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`1211 Avenue of the Americas
`New York, NY 10036
`Telephone: (212) 596-9000
`Facsimile: (212) 596-9090
`Leslie.Spencer@ropesgray.com
`
`3
`
`JPMC v. Maxim CBM2014-00180
`CHASE EX. 1019
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-mc-00244-JFC Document 975 Filed 01/27/15 Page 4 of 7
`
`Jeffrey.Dicker@ropesgray.com
`
`James R. Myers (DC 231993)
`ROPES & GRAY LLP
`One Metro Center
`700 12th St., NW, Suite 900
`Washington, DC 20005
`Telephone: (202) 508-4600
`Facsimile: (202) 508-4650
`James.Myers@ropesgray.com
`
`Kirsten R. Rydstrom (PA 76549)
`REED SMITH LLP
`225 Fifth Avenue
`Pittsburgh, PA 15222
`Telephone: (412) 288-3131
`Facsimile: (412) 288-3063
`krydstrom@reedsmith.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff and Counter
`Defendant BRANCH BANKING AND
`TRUST COMPANY
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` /s/ Bijal V. Vakil
` Bijal V. Vakil
`CA State Bar No.: 192878
`Shamita D. Etienne-Cummings
`CA State Bar No.: 202090
`WHITE & CASE LLP
`3000 El Camino Real
`Five Palo Alto Square 9th Floor
`Palo Alto, CA 94306
`Telephone 650.213.0300
`Facsimile: 650.213.8158
`bvakil@whitecase.com
`setienne@whitecase.com
`
`Samuel W. Braver
`PA I.D. No. 19682
`Ralph G. Fischer
`PA I.D. No. 200793
`BUCHANAN INGERSOLL &
`ROONEY PC
`One Oxford Centre
`301 Grant Street, 20th Floor
`Pittsburgh, PA 15219-1410
`
`4
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JPMC v. Maxim CBM2014-00180
`CHASE EX. 1019
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-mc-00244-JFC Document 975 Filed 01/27/15 Page 5 of 7
`
`Telephone 412.562.8800
`Facsimile 412.562.1041
`samuel.braver@bipc.com
`ralph.fischer@bipc.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants JPMORGAN
`CHASE & CO. and JPMORGAN BANK, N.A.
`
`/s/ Robin L. McGrath
`Robin L. McGrath
`Edward J. Benz III
`PAUL HASTINGS
`1170 Peachtree Road, N.E.
`Suite 100
`Atlanta, GA 30309
`Tel: (404) 815-2400
`Fax: (404) 815-2424
`robinmcgrath@paulhastings.com
`joebenz@paulhastings.com
`
`Kirsten R. Rydstrom
`PA ID No. 76549
`REED SMITH
`Reed Smith Centre
`225 Fifth Avenue
`Pittsburgh, PA 15222
`Tel: (412) 288-3131
`(412) 288-3063
`krydstrom@reedsmith.com
`Attorneys for Defendant BANK OF THE
`WEST
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ William P. Nelson
`
`Matthew D. Powers (pro hac vice)
`Steven S. Cherensky (pro hac vice)
`Paul T. Ehrlich (pro hac vice)
`William P. Nelson (pro hac vice)
`Aaron M. Nathan (pro hac vice)
`Stefani C. Smith (pro hac vice)
`Sam Y. Kim (pro hac vice)
`Robert L. Gerrity (pro hac vice)
`Palani P. Rathinasamy (pro hac vice)
`TENSEGRITY LAW GROUP LLP
`555 Twin Dolphin Drive, Suite 360
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Phone: (650) 802-6000
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`JPMC v. Maxim CBM2014-00180
`CHASE EX. 1019
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-mc-00244-JFC Document 975 Filed 01/27/15 Page 6 of 7
`
`Fax: (650) 802-6001
`Email:
`matthew.powers@tensegritylawgroup.com
`steven.cherensky@tensegritylawgroup.com
`paul.ehrlich@tensegritylawgroup.com
`william.nelson@tensegritylawgroup.com
`aaron.nathan@tensegritylawgroup.com
`stefani.smith@tensegritylawgroup.com
`sam.kim@tensegritylawgroup.com
`robert.gerrity@tensegritylawgroup.com
`palani@tensegritylawgroup.com
`
`Leland P. Schermer, Esquire
`Pa. ID No. 47283
`Bryan A. Loose, Esquire
`Pa. ID No. 201385
`LELAND SCHERMER & ASSOCIATES, PC
`Henry W. Oliver Building
`535 Smithfield Street, Third Floor
`Pittsburgh, PA 15222
`Phone: (412) 642-5000
`Fax: (412) 642-5010
`Email:
`lschermer@schermerlaw.com
`bloose@schermerlaw.com
`
`James C. Otteson (pro hac vice)
`Phillip W. Marsh (pro hac vice)
`Michael D.K. Nguyen (pro hac vice)
`AGILITY IP LAW LLP
`149 Commonwealth Drive
`Menlo Park, CA 94065
`Phone: (650) 227-4800
`Email:
`jim@agilityiplaw.com
`phil@agilityiplaw.com
`mnguyen@agilityiplaw.com
`
`Michael North (pro hac vice)
`NORTH WEBER & BAUGH LLP
`2479 E. Bayshore Road, Suite 707
`Palo Alto, CA 94303
`Email: mnorth@northweber.com
`
`Attorneys for
`MAXIM INTEGRATED PRODUCTS, INC.
`
`
`
`6
`
`JPMC v. Maxim CBM2014-00180
`CHASE EX. 1019
`
`

`

`Case 2:12-mc-00244-JFC Document 975 Filed 01/27/15 Page 7 of 7
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that I caused a true and correct copy of the foregoing to be served via the
`
`Western District of Pennsylvania’s ECF System this 27th day of January, 2015, on all counsel of
`
`record.
`
`
`
`/s/ Leslie M. Spencer
`
`JPMC v. Maxim CBM2014-00180
`CHASE EX. 1019
`
`