Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 44-1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 1 of 3 PageID 477
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`)))))))))))
`
`
`AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC.
`
`
`v.
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MEMORANDUM OF FACTS AND LAW IN SUPPORT OF
`DEFENDANT AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC.’S MOTION FOR STAY.
`Defendant Amazon Digital Services, Inc. (“Amazon”) respectfully moves for a stay of
`
`the proceedings pending the Court’s ruling on Amazon’s Motion to Transfer Venue to the North-
`
`ern District of California. (Dkt. 43.) While the Court considers Amazon’s motion, and similar
`
`motions filed by defendants in the related cases,1 the Local Rules of the Western District of Ten-
`
`nessee impose multiple deadlines on the parties and the Court.2 The Federal Circuit has ex-
`
`plained, however, that any proceedings on the merits should take place in the proper forum and
`
`has suggested that in situations such as here, where the parties have sought transfer to a more
`
`convenient forum, the district court should stay all proceedings pending resolution of the motions
`
`to transfer. See, e.g., In re Fusion-IO, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 26311 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 21, 2012) (non-
`
`precedential) (directing the district court to address a motion to transfer before proceedings on
`
`1 Case No. 2:2012-cv-02769, Dkt. 29; Case No. 2:2012-cv-02781, Dkt. 21; Case No. 2:2012-cv-
`02782, Dkt. 19; Case No. 2:2012-cv-02772, Dkt. 36; Case No. 2:12-cv-02783, Dkt. 30; Case No.
`2:2012-cv-02823, Dkt. 32; Case No. 2:2012-cv-02824, Dkt. 30; Case No. 2:2012-cv-02825, Dkt.
`27; Case No. 2:2012-cv-02826, Dkt. 25; Case No. 2:2012-cv-02827, Dkt. 29; Case No. 2:2012-
`cv-02828, Dkt. 24; Case No. 2:2012-cv-02829, Dkt. 30; Case No. 2:2012-cv-02830, Dkt. 22;
`Case No. 2:2012-cv-02831, Dkt. 22; Case No. 2:2012-cv-02832, Dkt. 20; Case No. 2:2012-cv-
`02833, Dkt. 35; Case No. 2:2012-cv-02834, Dkt. 32; Case No. 2:2012-cv-02866, Dkt. 18.
`2 For example, Amazons’s Preliminary Non-Infringement Contentions are due on February 28,
`2013 and its Invalidity and Unenforceability Contentions are due on April 10, 2013.
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 44-1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 478
`
`
`the merits of the case and directing the moving party to file a motion to stay all proceedings until
`
`the motion to transfer is decided).
`
`Pursuant to the Federal Circuit’s direction, many of the defendants in the related cases
`
`have filed and all the remainder are expected to file, motions to stay proceedings pending deci-
`
`sions on transfer, and the Court has already granted a number of those motions3. As explained in
`
`those motions, a stay of reasonable duration while the Court decides the pending motions to
`
`transfer will serve the purposes of the venue statute, promote judicial economy, and ensure that
`
`the substantive proceedings will take place in the proper forum. See Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376
`
`U.S. 612, 616 (1964); 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Amazon agrees and to avoid burdening the Court
`
`with a substantially duplicative submission, incorporates by reference the positions set forth by
`
`other defendants (Samsung, Facebook, Groupon, Sony, Google, Motorola, and Pandora) in their
`
`motions to stay and accompanying memoranda and exhibits.4
`
`For the above reasons, Amazon respectfully requests that this Court grant its motion to
`
`stay all proceedings in this action, including those called for in the Local Patent Rules, until the
`
`resolution of its motion to transfer.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (#06389)
`Glen G. Reid, Jr. (#8184)
`mvorder-bruegge@wyattfirm.com
`greid@wyattfirm.com
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`The Renaissance Center
`1715 Aaron Brenner Dr., Suite 800
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3 E.g., Case No. 2:12-cv-02769, Dkt. 37 & 43; Case No. 2:12-cv-02825, Dkt. 34 & 37; Case No.
`2:12-cv-02782, Dkt. 35 & 36; Case No. 2:12-cv-02824, Dkt. 30 & 33.
`4 While the Preliminary Infringement Contentions received by Amazon on January 14, 2013 are
`somewhat less voluminous than those referred to by Samsung, Sony, and Motorola, they are still
`more than 800 pages and will similarly require substantial effort to address in Amazon’s upcom-
`ing Preliminary Non-Infringement Contentions.
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp Document 44-1 Filed 02/12/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID 479
`
`
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`(901) 537-1000
`
`-and-
`
`J. David Hadden
`dhadden@fenwick.com
`Darren F. Donnelly
`ddonnelly@fenwick.com
`Saina S. Shamilov
`sshamilov@fenwick.com
`Ryan J. Marton
`rmarton@fenwick.com
`Clifford Web
`cweb@fenwick.com
`Justin Hulse
`jhulse@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street, 6th Floor
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`(650) 988-8500
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`60324350.1