`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LINKEDIN CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No.: 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO STAY
`
`Before the Court is Defendant LinkedIn Corporation’s
`(“Defendant”) Motion To Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of
`its Motion To Transfer (ECF No. 37), filed February 11, 2013.
`For the reasons that follow, the Motion is GRANTED.
`“The decision whether to grant a stay of a particular
`action is within the inherent power of the Court and is
`discretionary.” Ellis v. Merck & Co., Inc., 06-1005-T/AN, 2006
`WL 448694 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 19, 2006). The Court is tasked with
`“control[ling] the disposition of the causes on its docket with
`economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for
`litigants.” Gray v. Bush, 628 F.3d 779, 786 (6th Cir. 2010)
`(quoting Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936))
`(internal quotation marks omitted). Applying this power in a
`recent patent case, the United States Court of Appeals for the
`Federal Circuit directed the litigants to file a motion to stay
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-tmp Document 38 Filed 02/12/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 353
`
`proceedings and for the district court to decide the motion to
`stay and a pending motion to transfer venue “before proceeding
`to any motion on the merits of the action.” In re Fusion-IO,
`Inc., 489 Fed. App’x 465, 465 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`The instant case presents a similar set of
`circumstances. Plaintiff B.E. Technology, LLC, filed a patent-
`infringement action against Defendant on September 7, 2012.
`(ECF No. 1.) Defendant filed its Answer on December 31, 2012
`(ECF No. 19), and a Motion To Change Venue on January 3, 2013
`(ECF No. 21), seeking transfer to the United States District
`Court for the Northern District of California. Staying the
`proceedings — including the Local Patent Rule disclosures and
`fact discovery — will allow the Court to properly decide the
`pending Motion to Change Venue in light of judicial economy and
`comity. See McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Polin, 429 F.2d 30, 31
`(3d Cir. 1970) (“Judicial economy requires that another district
`court should not burden itself with the merits of the action
`until it is decided that a transfer should be effected . . .
`.”).
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-tmp Document 38 Filed 02/12/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID 354
`
`Therefore, the Court orders that all proceedings —
`including Local Patent Rule disclosures and fact discovery — are
`hereby stayed pending the outcome of Defendant’s Motion To
`Change Venue and further Order by the Court.
`IT IS SO ORDERED this 12th day of February, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Jon P. McCalla________
`CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`3