Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 71-1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 1 of 15 PageID 486
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:12cv2769 JPM-tmp
`
`Hon. Jon Phipps McCalla
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FACEBOOK’S MOTION TO
`STAY PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEWS OF U.S. PATENT NO. 6,628,314
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 71-1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 2 of 15 PageID 487
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`PAGE
`
`I.
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND....................................................... 2
`A.
`B.E. is Not a Practicing Entity, So None of the Considerations Associated
`With Staying Litigation Between Competitors are Implicated by this
`Motion .................................................................................................................... 2
`Little Has Occurred in This or Related Litigations Involving the ‘314
`Patent...................................................................................................................... 2
`The New Inter Partes Review Process Will Resolve Validity Disputes
`Faster and More Efficiently Than the Old Reexamination Process ....................... 3
`The Petitions for IPR Attack Every Asserted Claim of the ‘314 Patent ................ 4
`D.
`ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 5
`A.
`All Three Factors That Courts Consider When Weighing a Stay Favor
`Staying Litigation Over the ‘314 Patent ................................................................ 5
`1.
`B.E. Will Not Be Prejudiced or Suffer Tactical Disadvantage .................. 6
`2.
`A Stay Will Simplify Issues for Trial ........................................................ 6
`3.
`The Early Stage of the Case Favors a Stay ................................................ 8
`A Stay is Appropriate Even Though the PTO Has Yet to Institute IPR
`Proceedings ............................................................................................................ 8
`CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 9
`
`B.
`
`i
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 71-1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 3 of 15 PageID 488
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`PAGE(S)
`
`CASES
`
`Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International Inc. Fresenius,
`721 F.3d 1330 (Fed. Cir. 2013)..........................................................................................7, 8, 9
`
`Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. Samsung Telecom. America, LLC,
`No. 11–12945, 2012 WL 1049197 (E.D.Mich. March 28, 2012)..............................................6
`
`Neste Oil OYJ v. Dynamic Fuels, LLC,
`No. 12-1744-GMS, 2013 WL 3353984 (D. Del. July 2, 2013) .............................................8, 9
`
`One Stockduq Holdings, LLC v. Becton, Dickinson and Company,
`No. 2:12-cv-03037-JPM-tmp, D.I. No. 85 (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 12, 2013) ........................ passim
`
`Round Rock Research LLC v. Dole Food Co. Inc.,
`2012 WL 1185022 (D. Del. Apr. 6, 2012) .................................................................................6
`
`STATUTES
`
`35 U.S.C.
`§ 311(b) ......................................................................................................................................3
`§ 312(a) ......................................................................................................................................3
`§ 313...........................................................................................................................................3
`§ 314(a) ......................................................................................................................................3
`§ 314 (b) .....................................................................................................................................3
`§ 315...........................................................................................................................................7
`§ 315(e)(2) .................................................................................................................................3
`§ 316(a) ......................................................................................................................................3
`§ 316(a)(11) ...............................................................................................................................3
`§ 318(a) ......................................................................................................................................3
`
`OTHER AUTHORITIES
`
`37 C.F.R.
`§ 42.51........................................................................................................................................3
`§ 42.53........................................................................................................................................3
`
`H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 (part 1), at 40 (2011) ....................................................................................3
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314................................................................................................................1
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290................................................................................................................1
`
`ii
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 71-1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 4 of 15 PageID 489
`
`
`I.
`
`
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Facebook, Inc. respectfully moves to stay all litigation in this and related cases involving
`
`U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314 (“the ‘314 Patent”).1 Facebook, Google, and Microsoft recently filed
`
`a combined total of four petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) against the ‘314 Patent. The
`
`petitions demonstrate that every asserted claim of the ‘314 Patent is invalidated by prior art that
`
`was not considered by the Patent Office during prosecution.
`
`This Court recently recognized in One Stockduq Holdings, LLC v. Becton, Dickinson and
`
`Company that an inter partes review warrants staying district court litigation. The IPR process is
`
`fast and streamlines litigation by eliminating issues for trial—if not ending underlying litigation
`
`altogether. One Stockduq Holdings, LLC, No. 2:12-cv-03037-JPM-tmp, D.I. No. 85 (W.D.
`
`Tenn. Nov. 12, 2013). As the Court further recognized in One Stockduq Holdings, the benefits
`
`of a stay are greatest when (i) a case is in its early stages, (ii) all asserted claims are subject to
`
`IPR, and (iii) the litigants are not direct competitors. Id. Each of these factors is present here.
`
`An immediate stay is warranted because BE Technology does not oppose staying all
`
`litigation involving the ‘314 and ‘290 Patents—the two patents that are subject to inter partes
`
`review.2,3 (Armon Decl. Ex. 1, Oct. 24, 2013 Letter from D. Weinberg, and Ex. 2, Nov. 18, 2013
`
`Email from D. Weinberg.) B.E.’s position confirms that it will not be unfairly prejudiced by a
`
`stay. It is virtually assured that the Patent Office will institute IPR proceedings on the ‘314
`
`Patent because four IPRs were filed against each asserted claim, so it is appropriate to stay
`
`litigation over the ‘314 Patent now to reduce burdens of litigation on the Court and parties.
`
`
`1 To promote judicial economy, Facebook and B.E. agreed to consolidate briefing. Facebook expects that all other
`defendants accused of infringing the ‘314 Patent except Apple Inc. will file their own motion or join this motion.
`2 Defendant Apple, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-02831, indicated that it neither supports nor opposes a stay and may file a
`notice or other paper in its case further explaining its position on a potential stay.
`3 Samsung filed a motion to stay all litigation involving the ‘290 Patent on November 22, 2013 (see Case 2:12-cv-
`02825-JPM D.I. No. 63), and all other defendants (except Apple) accused of infringing that patent are expected to
`join Samsung’s motion.
`
`1
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 71-1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 5 of 15 PageID 490
`
`
`
`For these reasons and the additional considerations set forth below, the Court should stay
`
`this case and all other litigation involving the ‘314 Patent until a final written decision issues on
`
`each IPR initiated against the ‘314 Patent.
`
`II.
`
`FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
`
`A.
`
`B.E. is Not a Practicing Entity, So None of the Considerations Associated
`With Staying Litigation Between Competitors are Implicated by this Motion
`
`B.E. is a non-practicing entity that registered to do business in Tennessee one day before
`
`filing suit against Facebook. (D.I. 30, Ex. 4.) B.E.’s only business is enforcing its patents, so
`
`this motion does not implicate any of the considerations relating to irreparable harm from a stay
`
`that might arise in a competitor lawsuit. (Id., Ex. 5.)
`
`B.
`
`Little Has Occurred in This or Related Litigations Involving the ‘314 Patent
`
`More than a year after the service of B.E.’s Complaint, this litigation and related
`
`litigations involving the ‘314 Patent are still in their infancy. Lengthy extensions of time were
`
`granted at the outset of this litigation to align B.E.’s patent infringement lawsuits on similar
`
`schedules. (D.I. 16.) Next, Facebook and other defendants filed motions to stay pending
`
`decision on motions to transfer which the Court granted. (D.I. 43.) A case management
`
`conference was held on July 26, 2013 and a litigation schedule was entered on July 30, 2013.
`
`(D.I. 64.) That schedule ends with a claim construction hearing for all B.E. Technology cases on
`
`April 28, 2014. (Id.) No trial date has been set in any case involving the ‘314 Patent. (Id.)
`
`Since the case management conference in late July 2013, very little discovery has
`
`occurred. B.E. and the defendants are still negotiating Discovery and Protective Orders. In the
`
`absence of agreement on discovery limits or protections for confidential information and source
`
`code, discovery has proceeded slowly. On August 21, 2013, B.E. served its First Set of
`
`Interrogatories on Facebook, consisting of a single interrogatory. (Armon Decl. ¶ 6.) B.E. has
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 71-1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 6 of 15 PageID 491
`
`
`not served requests for production or admission on Facebook or noticed any depositions, and
`
`Facebook has not served written discovery on B.E. Across all cases involving the ‘314 Patent,
`
`only two depositions concerning third-party prior art have occurred.
`
`C.
`
`The New Inter Partes Review Process Will Resolve Validity Disputes Faster
`and More Efficiently Than the Old Reexamination Process
`
`The purpose of the America Invents Act (“AIA”) is “to establish a more efficient and
`
`streamlined patent system that will improve patent quality and limit unnecessary and
`
`counterproductive litigation costs.” H.R. Rep. No. 112-98 (part 1), at 40 (2011). The new IPR
`
`process holds promise for achieving these objectives. An IPR involves a full, adversarial
`
`challenge to the validity of a patent based on prior art patents and printed publications. The IPR
`
`process can include the production of documents, depositions, and usually results in an oral
`
`hearing. 35 U.S.C. §§ 311(b), 316(a); 37 C.F.R. §§ 42.51, 42.53. Once the PTO issues a final
`
`written decision, the petitioner is estopped from asserting in litigation that any reviewed claim
`
`“is invalid on any ground that the petitioner raised or reasonably could have raised during that
`
`inter partes review.” 35 U.S.C. §§ 315(e)(2), 318(a). Estoppel extends beyond the prior art
`
`included in the petition, which promises to significantly simplify district court litigation. Id.
`
`An IPR is initiated by written petition, which can be followed by an optional, preliminary
`
`response by the patent owner that is due within three months. 35 U.S.C. §§ 312(a), 313. The
`
`PTO initiates an IPR if the petitioner showed a reasonable likelihood of prevailing with respect
`
`to at least one challenged claim. 35 U.S.C. § 314(a). The PTO must make a decision on whether
`
`to institute the IPR within six months after the petition is filed. 35 U.S.C. § 314 (b). If the IPR
`
`is initiated, the PTO must issue a final determination within one year after the initiation of the
`
`IPR, or within eighteen months for good cause shown. 35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11). The Patent
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 71-1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 7 of 15 PageID 492
`
`
`Office reports that 82% of petitions for IPR have been initiated since the process was introduced
`
`in September 2012. (Armon Decl. Ex. 3.)
`
`In stark contrast to the old reexamination process, which proceeded before a single patent
`
`examiner, the new IPR process is adjudicated by a three judge panel of the Patent Trial and
`
`Appeal Board. The use of three judge panels for adjudicating IPRs should result in carefully
`
`reasoned results that resolve many patent validity issues that otherwise would be litigated in
`
`district court. Although only one IPR has been decided by the PTO as of the filing date of this
`
`motion, widespread consensus exists that IPRs likely will produce results that are similar to the
`
`old inter partes reexamination process, in which claims were amended or cancelled in 92 percent
`
`of cases. (Armon Decl. Ex. 4.)
`
`D.
`
`The Petitions for IPR Attack Every Asserted Claim of the ‘314 Patent
`
`On October 9, 2013, Facebook filed two IPR petitions against the ‘314 Patent. Google
`
`and Microsoft filed one petition each against the ‘314 patent. (Armon Decl. Exs. 5-6, copies of
`
`Google’s and Microsoft’s IPR Petitions.) The chart below summarizes the ‘314 IPR petitions:
`
`Patent
`
`‘314 Patent
`
`‘314 Patent
`
`‘314 Patent
`
`
`‘314 Patent
`
`Challenged Claims
`
`Date of Filing
`
`Challenger
`
`Case No.
`
`11-13, 15, 18, 20 (all
`asserted claims)
`11-22 (all asserted
`claims and additional
`non-asserted claims)
`11-13, 15, 18, 20 (all
`asserted claims)
`
`11-13, 15, 18, 20 (all
`asserted claims)
`
`Oct. 8, 2013
`
`Google
`
`IPR2014-00038
`
`Oct. 9, 2013
`
`Microsoft
`
`IPR2014-00039
`
`Oct. 9, 2013
`
`Facebook
`
`IPR2014-00052
`
`Oct. 9, 2013
`
`Facebook
`
`IPR2014-00053
`
`Facebook’s petitions present seven prior art references and five proposed grounds for
`
`rejection, covering all six asserted claims of the ‘314 Patent. (See Armon Decl. ¶¶ 9-10, Exs. 7-
`
`10 (copies of Facebook’s IPR Petitions and supporting Declarations.) All but one prior art
`
`4
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 71-1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 8 of 15 PageID 493
`
`
`reference—a secondary reference attacking a single dependent claim—were not considered by
`
`the PTO during the prosecution of the ‘314 Patent. (Armon Decl. ¶ 10.)
`
`A high likelihood exists that the references presented in Facebook’s, Google’s, and
`
`Microsoft’s petitions will invalidate all of the asserted claims of the ‘314 Patent. The ‘314
`
`Patent is directed to a method for targeted advertising based on demographic information.
`
`Facebook’s IPRs show that demographically targeted advertising was well-known in the art
`
`before the earliest priority date of the ‘314 Patent. Online advertising was used publicly in 1995
`
`and earlier by Prodigy, America Online, and CompuServe. (Armon Decl., Ex. 8 at ¶ 20 (Decl. of
`
`Robert J. Sherwood).) By 1996, well before the July 1998 priority date of the ’314 Patent,
`
`Internet advertising was a two-hundred-million-dollar-per-year industry. Id. And by late 1996
`
`or early 1997, multiple companies had implemented systems that targeted advertising based on
`
`Internet users’ demographic information. Each of these prior art systems anticipated the asserted
`
`claims of the ‘314 Patent or rendered them obvious. Id. at ¶ 25. Facebook’s IPR petitions draw
`
`on this and other prior art to show that the asserted claims of the ‘314 Patent are invalid. (Armon
`
`Decl., Exs. 7-10.)
`
`III. ARGUMENT
`
`A.
`
`All Three Factors That Courts Consider When Weighing a Stay Favor
`Staying Litigation Over the ‘314 Patent
`
`Each of the three factors that courts weigh in determining motions to stay favors staying
`
`litigation over the ‘314 Patent. The three factors are: (1) whether a stay would unduly prejudice
`
`or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party; (2) whether a stay will simplify
`
`the issues in question and trial of the case; and (3) whether discovery is complete and a trial date
`
`has been set. One Stockduq Holdings, Case No. 2:12-cv-03037-JPM-tmp, D.I. No. 85 at 6-7.
`
`5
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 71-1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 9 of 15 PageID 494
`
`
`
`1.
`
`B.E. Will Not Be Prejudiced or Suffer Tactical Disadvantage
`
`B.E.’s willingness to stay all litigation involving the ‘314 and ‘290 Patents conclusively
`
`establishes that it will not be unfairly prejudiced or tactically disadvantaged by a stay. (Armon
`
`Decl. Exs. 1-2.) A stay will benefit B.E. by allowing it to conserve resources until the IPR
`
`process concludes. Absent a stay, B.E. could be compelled to develop its infringement claims
`
`simultaneously against eighteen defendants—only to have the ‘314 and ‘290 Patents invalidated
`
`in the IPR process.
`
`In addition to the foregoing considerations, B.E. is a non-practicing entity that does not
`
`compete with Facebook or any other defendant. In patent infringement lawsuits where the
`
`parties do not compete, courts have held that there is no undue prejudice from a stay. One
`
`Stockduq Holdings, Case No. 2:12-cv-03037-JPM-tmp, D.I. No. 85 at 8.
`
`Furthermore, this litigation (and all B.E. Technology cases) remains in its earliest stages
`
`and the parties have barely commenced fact discovery. The early stage of the litigation further
`
`reduces any tactical disadvantage to B.E. that might otherwise accrue from a stay. Round Rock
`
`Research LLC v. Dole Food Co. Inc., 2012 WL 1185022, at *2 (D. Del. Apr. 6, 2012)
`
`(concluding that there is “little tactical disadvantage,” if any, associated with granting stay early
`
`in the discovery period).
`
`Finally, the ‘314 Patent issued in 2003 and B.E. waited nine years to file suit. B.E.’s
`
`delay in filing suit is additional evidence that it will not suffer prejudice from a stay. Visual
`
`Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. Samsung Telecom. America, LLC, No. 11–12945, 2012 WL
`
`1049197, at *3 (E.D.Mich. March 28, 2012) (holding that plaintiff’s one-year delay in filing suit
`
`supported a finding that a stay would not be unduly prejudicial).
`
`6
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 71-1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 10 of 15 PageID 495
`
`
`
`2.
`
`A Stay Will Simplify Issues for Trial
`
`A stay is further justified because the four IPRs filed against the ‘314 Patent will
`
`eliminate or streamline key invalidity issues—and likely will render additional district court
`
`proceedings unnecessary. As the Court found in One Stockduq Holdings, “[e]ven if all claims
`
`are confirmed by the PTO, the record of the [IPR] will asssist this Court in reducing the length
`
`and complexity of this litigation and will limit what issues are left to be resolved by the Court.”
`
`Case No. 2:12-cv-03037-JPM-tmp, D.I. No. 85 at 15. Additionally, petitioners (Facebook,
`
`Google, and Microsoft) will be estopped from later raising validity challenges in district court
`
`that were or could have been raised during the IPR process. 35 U.S.C. § 315. The substantial
`
`simplification of issues that will result from the IPR process weighs heavily in favor of a stay.
`
`One Stockduq Holdings, Case No. 2:12-cv-03037-JPM-tmp, D.I. No. 85 at 14-15.
`
`The power of post-grant proceedings to simplify issues, and the inefficiencies that can
`
`arise when litigation proceeds in parallel with reexamination or inter partes review was
`
`illustrated by the Federal Circuit’s decision in Fresenius USA, Inc. v. Baxter International Inc.
`
`Fresenius began in 2003 and lasted for nearly a decade, including a jury verdict of infringement
`
`and an earlier appeal to and remand by the Federal Circuit, before the district court entered
`
`judgment in favor of the patent holder in 2012. Fresenius, 721 F.3d 1330, 1332-35 (Fed. Cir.
`
`2013). The patent-in-suit had been found valid by a jury, which was affirmed by an interim
`
`decision from the Federal Circuit. Id. That same patent, however, was also involved in a
`
`parallel reexamination that ended with a finding that all asserted claims were invalid. Id. at
`
`1334-35. The district court was asked to stay the case in light of the reexamination, but declined
`
`to do so. Id. at 1335.
`
`The Federal Circuit held that the cancellation of the claims in the reexamination
`
`precluded the patent holder’s infringement judgment, notwithstanding a jury verdict and an
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 71-1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 11 of 15 PageID 496
`
`
`interim appellate decision finding the asserted patents valid. The Federal Circuit reasoned that
`
`the outcome of the reexamination required the district court proceedings to be vacated because
`
`“the reexamination statute restricts a patentee’s ability to enforce the patent’s original claims to
`
`those claims that survive reexamination in ‘identical’ form.” Id. at 1339.
`
`Fresenius presents a cautionary tale of the potential consequences of allowing district
`
`court litigation to proceed in parallel with PTO proceedings. The result of not staying the
`
`litigation in Fresenius was nearly a decade of litigation, with untold costs for the parties and
`
`expenditure of resources by the Court—all for naught.
`
`3.
`
`The Early Stage of the Case Favors a Stay
`
`As Facebook explained in Section II(B) above, litigation over the ‘314 Patent remains in
`
`the earliest stages of discovery, which also favors a stay. In One Stockduq Holdings, this Court
`
`granted a motion to stay even though that litigation was much more advanced, with claim
`
`construction issues briefed and a trial date set. Case No. 2:12-cv-03037-JPM-tmp, D.I. No. 85 at
`
`12, 17. The procedural posture in this litigation presents a much more compelling case for
`
`granting a stay because claim construction issues have not been filed, no trial date has been set,
`
`and virtually no fact discovery has occurred. This litigation is an ideal candidate for stay
`
`because courts have recognized that maximum efficiencies for the courts and parties accrue in
`
`cases that are stayed early. Neste Oil OYJ v. Dynamic Fuels, LLC, No. 12-1744-GMS, 2013 WL
`
`3353984, at *5 (D. Del. July 2, 2013) (“Staying a case in its early stages can be said to advance
`
`judicial efficiency and maximize the likelihood that neither the Court nor the parties expend their
`
`assets addressing invalidity claims.”) (quotation and citation omitted).
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 71-1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 12 of 15 PageID 497
`
`
`
`B.
`
`A Stay is Appropriate Even Though the PTO Has Yet to Institute IPR
`Proceedings
`
`The unique factual circumstances of this case justify staying litigation over the ‘314
`
`Patent immediately, even though the PTO has yet to initiate IPRs on the ‘314 Patent.
`
`First, B.E.’s willingness to stay all litigation over the ‘314 and ‘290 Patents illustrates
`
`that B.E. perceives that a stay will protect, rather than harm, its interests. This circumstance was
`
`absent in One Stockduq Holdings, in which the Court denied a stay pending IPR until the PTO
`
`instituted the IPR process. No. 2:12-cv-03037-JPM-tmp, D.I. No. 85.
`
`Second, four separate IPR petitions were filed against the ‘314 Patent. In light of the
`
`82% IPR institution rate, it is virtually certain that at least one (if not all) of the IPRs filed against
`
`the ‘314 Patent will be instituted. (Armon Decl. Ex. 3.) Consequently, there is little risk of
`
`unnecessarily delaying this litigation in favor of IPR proceedings that may not be commenced.
`
`As the Fresenius case demonstrates, a much greater risk arises from delaying the entry of a stay,
`
`which likely will result in the Court’s and parties’ resources being wasted on litigation
`
`proceedings that ultimately prove to be unnecessary to resolution of B.E.’s infringement claims.
`
`Fresenius, 721 F.3d 1330, 1332-35 (Fed. Cir. 2013).
`
`Third, numerous courts have stayed litigation before the PTO institutes the IPR process,
`
`so the immediate stay Facebook seek is not extraordinary or unusual. E.g., Neste Oil OYJ, 2013
`
`WL 3353984 (granting motion to stay prior to initiation of IPR). If the Court decides not to
`
`immediately stay litigation over the ‘314 Patent, Facebook requests permission to renew its
`
`motion after the PTO decides whether to institute any IPRs against the ’314 Patent.
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`Facebook respectfully requests that the Court immediately stay all litigation involving the
`
`‘314 Patent in this case and all other cases. In light of the near-unanimous agreement among the
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 71-1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 13 of 15 PageID 498
`
`
`parties over the appropriateness of a stay, and further in light of the near-certainty that the PTO
`
`will institute one or more of the four IPRs filed against the ‘314 Patent, a stay is necessary to
`
`conserve the Court’s and parties’ resources. Facebook respectfully requests that the stay remain
`
`in place until a final written decision is entered in each IPR filed against the ‘314 Patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: November 27, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`
`/s/ Orion Armon
`
`COOLEY LLP
`Heidi Keefe (pro hac vice)
`keefe@cooley.com
`Mark Weinstein (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 (pro hac vice)
`oarmon@cooley.com
`Sara Radke (pro hac vice)
`sradke@cooley.com
`Peter Sauer (pro hac vice)
`psauer@cooley.com
`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
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 71-1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 14 of 15 PageID 499
`
`
`
`
`
`laura.merritt@wallerlaw.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant Facebook, Inc.
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp Document 71-1 Filed 11/27/13 Page 15 of 15 PageID 500
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served this 27th day of November,
`2013, on the following counsel of record via the Court’s Electronic Filing System:
`
`Craig Robert Kaufman  
`Robert Edward Freitas
`Qudus B. Olaniran
`James H. 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
`
`Richard M. Carter
`Adam J. Eckstein
`MARTIN TATE MORROW & MARSTON
`International Place, Tower II
`6410 Poplar Avenue, Suite 1000
`Memphis, TN 38119
`901-522-9000  
`rcarter@martintate.com
`aeckstein@martintate.com 
`
`
`
` 
`
` /s/ Orion Armon
`
`
`
`
`
`12