Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 45 Filed 02/11/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID 377
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:12cv2769 JPM-tmp
`
`Hon. Jon Phipps McCalla
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION AND MEMORANDUM FOR LEAVE TO FILE REPLY
`SUPPORTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE
`
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(c), Defendant Facebook, Inc., hereby respectfully moves for
`
`leave to file a reply memorandum, not exceeding 10 pages in length, supporting its pending
`
`motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Dkt. 29). In support of this motion,
`
`Facebook states as follows:
`
`1.
`
`This action was commenced on September 7, 2012. (Dkt. 1). Facebook timely
`
`responded to the Complaint on December 31, 2012. (Dkt. 27). On January 10, 2013, Facebook
`
`filed a motion and supporting documents seeking transfer of this action to the Northern District
`
`of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). (Dkt. 28-29). Plaintiff B.E. Technology, L.L.C.
`
`(“B.E.”) filed a response opposing such transfer on January 31, 2013. (Dkt. 38).
`
`2.
`
`Determining the most convenient venue is a significant matter in this dispute,
`
`particularly because it may impact 18 other cases filed by the same plaintiff asserting either the
`
`same patent as is asserted against Facebook, U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314, (“the ‘314 Patent”) or
`
`two other patents, which B.E. asserts are related to the ‘314 Patent. See B.E.’s Memorandum in
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 45 Filed 02/11/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID 378
`
`Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Transfer Venue (“Memo in Opposition”) at 3. (Dkt. 38).
`
`There are multiple transfer motions pending among these lawsuits.1 Accordingly, the issue
`
`merits thorough consideration of all relevant facts, arguments and authorities.
`
`3.
`
`In its response, B.E. made arguments to which Facebook should be afforded an
`
`opportunity to respond.
`
`4.
`
`As the moving party, Facebook bears the burden on the underlying motion.
`
`Allowing Facebook an opportunity for rebuttal, through a reply memorandum, comports with
`
`fair application of this burden.
`
`5.
`
`Because this action is in its early stages and no scheduling order has been entered,
`
`the leave to file a reply will not prejudice any party. Indeed, the proposed Order on the motion
`
`would require Facebook to file its reply within just 5 days from the grant of leave.
`
`6.
`
`While Facebook is committed to its reply being as concise as possible and
`
`limiting its briefing to rebuttal of B.E.’s opposition, given the scope of issues and circumstances
`
`involved, Facebook requests authorization to use up to 10 pages rather than the 5 pages provided
`
`by Local rule 7.2(e).
`
`7.
`
`Facebook has consulted with opposing counsel who does not object to the Court
`
`granting Facebook leave to file a 10-page reply to be filed within 5 days of an order granting
`
`leave.
`
`
`1 To date, motions to transfer have been filed in 17 of the 18 other cases brought by B.E. pending before the Court:
`LinkedIn Corporation, Case No. 2:12-cv-02772, Dkt. 21; Google Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-02830, Dkt. No. 22;
`Motorola Mobility Holdings LLC, Case No. 2:12-cv-02866, Dkt. No. 18; Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-02866, Dkt.
`No. 18; Twitter, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-02783, Dkt.30; Pandora Media, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-02782, Dkt. 19;
`Barnes & Nobel, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-02823, Dkt. 28; Groupon Inc., Case. No. 2:12-cv-02781, Dkt. 21; Spark
`Networks, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-02866, Dkt. No. 18; Microsoft Corp., Case No. 2:12-cv-02829, Dkt. 31;
`Match.com LLC, Case No. 2:12-cv-02834, Dkt. 32; People Media, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-02833, Dkt. 35; Samsung
`Telecommunications America, LLC, Case. No 2:12-cv-02824, Dkt. 27; Samsung Electronics America, Inc., Case
`No. 2:12-02825, Dkt. 31; Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, Case. No. 2:12-cv-02826, Dkt. 25; Sony
`Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-02827, Dkt. 29; Sony Electronics Inc., Case. No. 2:12-cv-
`02828, Dkt. 24.
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 45 Filed 02/11/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID 379
`
`
`
`A proposed order granting this motion is being submitted via electronic mail to the Court.
`
`Dated: February 11, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`
`s/ Orion Armon
`
`Heidi Keefe (CA #178960) (pro hac vice)
`hkeefe@cooley.com
`Mark Weinstein (CA #193043) (pro hac vice
`mweinstein@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`3175 Hanover Street
`Palo Alto, CA 94304-1130
`Telephone: (650) 843-5000
`Facsimile: (650) 849-7400
`
`Orion Armon (CO # 34923) (pro hac vice)
`oarmon@cooley.com
`Sara Radke (CO # 44995) (pro hac vice)
`sradke@cooley.com
`COOLEY LLP
`380 Interlocken Crescent, Suite 900
`Broomfield, CO 80021
`Telephone: (720) 566-4000
`Facsimile: (720) 566-4099
`
`Heather J. Hubbard (TN # 23699)
`Laura P. Merritt (TN # 26482)
`WALLER LANSDEN DORTCH & DAVIS, LLP
`Nashville City Center
`511 Union St., Suite 2700
`Nashville, TN 37219-8966
`615-850-6024
`Fax: 615-244-6804
`heather.hubbard@wallerlaw.com
`laura.merritt@wallerlaw.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Counsel for Defendant Facebook, Inc.
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 45 Filed 02/11/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID 380
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served this 11th day of February,
`2013, on the following counsel of record via the Court’s Electronic Filing System:
`
`Craig Robert Kaufman  
`Robert Edward Freitas
`Qudus B. Olaniran
`Hsiang Hong Lin
`Daniel J. Weinberg
`FREITAS TSENG & KAUFMAN, LLP
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`650-593-6300
`ckaufman@ftklaw.com
`rfreitas@ftklaw.com
`qolaniran@ftklaw.com
`jlin@ftklaw.com
`dweinberg@ftklaw.com
`
`Adam Calhoun Simpson 
`Richard M. Carter
`MARTIN TATE MORROW & MARSTON
`International Place, Tower II
`6410 Poplar Avenue, Suite 1000
`Memphis, TN 38119
`901-522-9000
`asimpson@martintate.com
`rcarter@martintate.com 
`
` 
`
`s/ Orion Armon
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LOCAL RULE 7.2 CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION
`
`
`
`On February 8, 2013, I contacted Adam Simpson, counsel for Plaintiff B.E. Technology,
`
`L.L.C., by phone and email regarding the request for leave to file a reply brief. Mr. Simpson
`indicated that B.E. Technology does not oppose a grant of leave.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Laura P. Merritt
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4