Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-dkv Document 28 Filed 01/10/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID 224
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`LINKEDIN CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-2772 JPM dvk
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`PATENT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE NOTICE
`
`Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 2.1(a), Plaintiff B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (“B.E.”) and
`
`Defendant LinkedIn Corporation (“LinkedIn”) jointly submit this Patent Scheduling Conference
`
`Notice informing the Court:
`
`(1)
`
`Scheduling for a Patent Scheduling Conference
`
`B.E.’s position: B.E.’s position is this action is ripe to be scheduled for a Patent
`
`Scheduling Conference. B.E. believes that the Court should hold a consolidated conference to
`
`address consolidation of the related cases and other issues related to judicial economy and
`
`efficiency.
`
`LinkedIn’s position: This action is not ripe for a Patent Scheduling Conference.
`
`LinkedIn has filed a motion to transfer the action to the Northern District of California (Dkt. No.
`
`21), and it would be premature to hold a Patent Scheduling Conference before the Court
`
`addresses LinkedIn’s transfer motion. The Federal Circuit has acknowledged that such transfer
`
`motions are a threshold matter to be decided before proceeding with discovery or the case on the
`
`merits. See, e.g., In re Fusion I-O, Inc., Case No. 12-139, 2012 WL 6634939, at *1 (Fed. Cir.
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-dkv Document 28 Filed 01/10/13 Page 2 of 7 PageID 225
`
`Dec. 21, 2012) (district court should act on motion to transfer before proceeding with case on the
`
`merits); see also In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 337 F.2d 429, 433 (5th Cir. 2003) (disposition of
`
`motion to transfer “should have taken a top priority in the handling of this case”). Further,
`
`LinkedIn opposes consolidation of its case with the other actions filed by B.E. in this district
`
`against unrelated defendants. Should the Court deny LinkedIn’s motion to transfer the action to
`
`the Northern District of California, LinkedIn requests that the Court set a separate patent
`
`scheduling conference for this case.
`
`(2) Modifications to the Local Patent Rules
`
`B.E.’s position: B.E.’s position is this action should be consolidated with the other B.E.
`
`actions pending before this Court for consolidated claim construction proceedings and a trial on
`
`invalidity and unenforceability of the patents-in-suit1 and that no modifications to the deadlines
`
`set by the Patent Local Rules are necessary, beyond any minor modifications necessary to
`
`synchronize the actions.
`
`LinkedIn’s position: LinkedIn objects to consolidation with the other B.E. actions—
`
`accusing separate and independently-developed products by unrelated defendants—currently
`
`pending before the Court. Involuntary consolidation of any issues for trial would be highly
`
`prejudicial and is impermissible under 35 U.S.C. § 299(c). Should the Court consider
`
`consolidation, LinkedIn respectfully requests that the parties be allowed the opportunity to fully
`
`brief this issue and request a hearing. If the Court is nonetheless inclined to hold a consolidated
`
`
`1 B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc., 2:12-cv-02769 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v.
`Groupon, Inc., 2:12-cv-02781 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Match.com L.L.C., 2:12-cv-
`02834 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. People Media, Inc., 2:12-cv-02833 JPM-tmp; B.E.
`Technology, L.L.C. v. Pandora Media, Inc., 2:12-cv-02782 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v.
`Spark Networks, Inc., 2:12-cv-02832 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Twitter, Inc., 2:12-cv-
`02783 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Google Inc., 2:12-cv-02830 JPM-tmp; B.E.
`Technology, L.L.C. v. Microsoft Corporation, 2:12-cv-02829 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C.
`v. Apple Inc., 2:12-cv-02831 JPM-tmp.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-dkv Document 28 Filed 01/10/13 Page 3 of 7 PageID 226
`
`claim construction hearing, LinkedIn requests that defendants be permitted separate claim
`
`construction disclosures and briefing at defendants’ option, with two weeks additional time for
`
`each such deadline under the Patent Local Rules to allow for coordination among defendants
`
`wherever possible.
`
`LinkedIn further proposes that the Initial Non-Infringement Contentions and related
`
`production provisions set forth in Patent Local Rules 3.3 and 3.4 be extended by 56 days to be
`
`due on the same date as LinkedIn’s Initial Invalidity and Unenforceability Contentions. Such an
`
`extension would allow for analysis of B.E.’s allegations against LinkedIn, and for entry of a
`
`protective order governing the production of highly confidential technical information, including
`
`any source code. Such source code comprises trade secrets and other highly confidential
`
`technical information, requiring specific protections that are not set forth in the Appendix A to
`
`the Patent Local Rules.
`
`LinkedIn also respectfully requests, based on the complexity of the case and potential
`
`third-party prior art, that the procedures of Patent Local Rule 4.7 be amended to provide for the
`
`close of fact discovery 60 (rather than 30) days following issuance of the Court’s claim
`
`construction ruling and Patent Local Rule 5.1(b) be amended to provide for initial Expert
`
`Witness disclosures 60 (rather than 30) days following issuance of the Court’s claim construction
`
`ruling.
`
`Additionally, LinkedIn proposes
`
`that
`
`the deadline for Final Non-Infringement
`
`Contentions, Invalidity Contentions and Unenforceability Contentions be extended until 30 days
`
`following issuance of the Court’s claim construction ruling. This will allow some time for
`
`evaluating any Final Infringement Contentions.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-dkv Document 28 Filed 01/10/13 Page 4 of 7 PageID 227
`
`(3)
`
`Case Management Issues
`
`B.E.’s position: B.E.’s position is this action should be consolidated, for claim
`
`construction, discovery, and trial on issues of invalidity and unenforceability, with all of the
`
`other patent infringement actions filed by B.E. in this Court involving the same patents at issue.
`
` B.E. believes that there are no other case management issues that would impact any
`
`party’s ability to conform to the Local Patent Rules.
`
`LinkedIn’s position: Any consolidation of this case with the other unrelated actions
`
`filed by B.E. in this district is improper and highly prejudicial, particularly for any portion of the
`
`trial. Again, involuntary consolidation of any issues for trial is impermissible under 35 U.S.C. §
`
`299(c). B.E.’s allegations in these cases are directed against a wide range of different
`
`technologies and independently-developed products. The cases will have significant factual
`
`differences regarding the features and functionality of the accused products of the unrelated
`
`defendants. Based on B.E.’s infringement theories against these different products, the cases
`
`will include different prior art to be presented at trial by each defendant. Accordingly, any
`
`consolidated proceedings or trial—including trial on invalidity and unenforceability—would be
`
`improper and highly prejudicial.
`
`As noted above, if the Court is nonetheless inclined to hold a consolidated claim
`
`construction hearing, LinkedIn requests the option for separate claim construction disclosures
`
`and briefing, with additional time for coordination among the different defendants where
`
`possible.
`
`Regarding discovery, LinkedIn believes that some coordination on discovery may be
`
`possible, but that discovery should not be consolidated generally across the different cases.
`
`Rather, the parties should meet and confer with respect to coordination of discovery that may be
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-dkv Document 28 Filed 01/10/13 Page 5 of 7 PageID 228
`
`common across multiple cases and submit a discovery plan with any such agreements prior to the
`
`patent scheduling conference.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 10, 2013
`
`
`Dated: January 10, 2013
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: s/Craig R. Kaufman
`Robert E. Freitas (CA Bar No. 80948)
`Craig R. Kaufman (CA Bar No. 159458)
`James Lin (CA Bar No. 241472)
`Qudus B. Olaniran (CA Bar No. 267838)
`FREITAS TSENG & KAUFMAN LLP
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone:
`(650) 593-6300
`Facsimile:
`(650) 593-6301
`rfreitas@ftklaw.com
`ckaufman@ftklaw.com
`jlin@ftklaw.com
`qolaniran@ftklaw.com
`
`
`Richard M. Carter (TN B.P.R. #7285)
`Adam C. Simpson (TN B.P.R. #24705)
`MARTIN, TATE, MORROW & MARSTON, P.C.
`6410 Poplar Avenue, Suite 1000
`Memphis, TN 38119-4839
`Telephone: (901) 522-9000
`Facsimile: (901) 527-3746
`rcarter@martintate.com
`asimpson@martintate.com
`
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`By: s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`(per email consent dated 1/10/13)
`Glen G. Reid, Jr. (#8184)
`greid@wyattfirm.com
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (#06389)
`mvorder-bruegge@wyattfirm.com
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`The Renaissance Center
`1715 Aaron Brenner Dr., Suite 800
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-dkv Document 28 Filed 01/10/13 Page 6 of 7 PageID 229
`
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`Ph: 901.537-1000; Fax: 901.537.1010
`
`-and-
`
`J. David Hadden
`Email: dhadden@fenwick.com
`Darren F. Donnelly
`Email: ddonnelly@fenwick.com
`Saina S. Shamilov
`Email: sshamilov@fenwick.com
`Ryan J. Marton
`Email: rmarton@fenwick.com
`Clifford Webb
`Email: cwebb@fenwick.com
`Justin G. Hulse
`Email: jhulse@fenwick.com
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street, 6th Floor
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Ph: 650.988-8500; Fax: 650.938.5200
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`LINKEDIN CORP.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-dkv Document 28 Filed 01/10/13 Page 7 of 7 PageID 230
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on this 10th day of January, 2013, a copy of the foregoing was
`filed through the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
`Glen G. Reid, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`Phone: 901.537.1000
`Facsimile: 901.537.1010
`greid@wyattfirm.com
`mvorder-bruegge@wyattfirm.com
`
`J. David Hadden
`Darren F. Donnelly
`Saina S. Shamilov
`Ryan J. Marton
`Clifford Webb
`Justin G. Hulse
`FENWICK & WEST LLP
`801 California Street, 6th Floor
`Mountain View, CA 94041
`Phone: 650.988-8500
`Facsimile: 650.938.5200
`dhadden@fenwick.com
`ddonnelly@fenwick.com
`sshamilov@fenwick.com
`rmarton@fenwick.com
`cwebb@fenwick.com
`jhulse@fenwick.com
`
`
`s/Craig R. Kaufman
`Craig R. Kaufman
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -