Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-cgc Document 28 Filed 02/01/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID 218
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-02781-JPM
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Judge: Hon. Jon P. McCalla
`
`Mag. Judge: Hon. Charmiane G. Claxton
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GROUPON, INC.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`GROUPON, INC.’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF ITS MOTION
`TO TRANSFER VENUE
`
`Defendant Groupon, Inc. (“Groupon”) respectfully moves this Court for a stay of the
`
`proceedings pending the Court’s ruling on Groupon’s Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Docket # 21). In support of its Motion to Stay, Groupon states as follows:
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff B.E. Technology, LLC (“B.E.”) sued Groupon on September 10, 2012, accusing
`
`Groupon of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314. B.E. filed similar lawsuits against 19 other
`
`defendants as well. On January 10, 2013, Groupon filed its motion to transfer (Dkt. No. 21). In
`
`the motion, Groupon argued that the Northern District of California is the more convenient
`
`forum for this case, as well as a number of the other cases filed by B.E. because it is the center of
`
`the relevant evidence, and because B.E.’s contacts with the Western District of Tennessee are
`
`limited and recent. On January 31, 2012, B.E. filed its Opposition to the Motion to Transfer.
`
`Groupon intends to request leave to file a reply to B.E.’s opposition. However, by February 18,
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-02781-JPM
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`Judge: Hon. Jon P. McCalla
`
`Mag. Judge: Hon. Charmiane G. Claxton
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`GROUPON, INC.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`GROUPON, INC.’S MOTION TO STAY PENDING RESOLUTION OF ITS MOTION
`TO TRANSFER VENUE
`
`Defendant Groupon, Inc. (“Groupon”) respectfully moves this Court for a stay of the
`
`proceedings pending the Court’s ruling on Groupon’s Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28
`
`U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Docket # 21). In support of its Motion to Stay, Groupon states as follows:
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`Plaintiff B.E. Technology, LLC (“B.E.”) sued Groupon on September 10, 2012, accusing
`
`Groupon of infringing U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314. B.E. filed similar lawsuits against 19 other
`
`defendants as well. On January 10, 2013, Groupon filed its motion to transfer (Dkt. No. 21). In
`
`the motion, Groupon argued that the Northern District of California is the more convenient
`
`forum for this case, as well as a number of the other cases filed by B.E. because it is the center of
`
`the relevant evidence, and because B.E.’s contacts with the Western District of Tennessee are
`
`limited and recent. On January 31, 2012, B.E. filed its Opposition to the Motion to Transfer.
`
`Groupon intends to request leave to file a reply to B.E.’s opposition. However, by February 18,
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-cgc Document 28 Filed 02/01/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID 219
`
`2013, Groupon must also respond to B.E.’s initial contentions and produce related documents
`
`pursuant to the Local Patent Rules.1
`
`ARGUMENT
`
`To serve the convenience of the parties and the Court, Groupon seeks a stay of all
`
`deadlines pending the resolution of its motion to transfer. The Federal Circuit recently discussed
`
`the importance of addressing motions to transfer at the outset of litigation. In re EMC Corp., No.
`
`13-142, 2013 U.S. App. LEXIS 1985, *5 (Fed. Cir. Jan. 29, 2013)(non-precedential)(explaining
`
`that Congress’ intent to prevent judicial inefficiency “may be thwarted where … defendants must
`
`partake in years of litigation prior to a determination on a transfer motion”). Additionally, the
`
`Federal Circuit has suggested that district courts stay proceedings pending resolution of a motion
`
`to transfer. See, e.g. In re Fusion-IO, 2012 U.S. LEXIS 26311 (Fed. Cir. Dec. 21, 2012)(non-
`
`precedential)(directing Fusion-IO, on remand, to file a motion to transfer along with a motion to
`
`stay proceedings pending disposition of the transfer motion and instructing the district court to
`
`act on those motion before proceeding to any motion on the merits).
`
`The defendants in the other related cases have filed similar motions to stay. Defendants
`
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`(collectively “Samsung”) filed a Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of Samsung’s Motions to
`
`Transfer to the District of New Jersey. (Case No. 12-cv-02824, Docket # 30.) In their motion,
`
`Samsung argued that, absent a stay, the Court and the parties will likely expend significant
`
`resources that they might not otherwise need to expend if the motion to transfer is granted.
`
`
`1 The original deadline was February 4, 2013. The parties agreed to a two-week extension
`of time for Groupon to file its Local Patent Rule 3.3 and 3.4 submissions.
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-cgc Document 28 Filed 02/01/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID 220
`
`Defendant Facebook filed a similar motion in its case on January 31, 2013. (Case No. 12-cv-
`
`02769, Docket # 37.)
`
`For the reasons already expressed in motions to stay already filed by Samsung and
`
`Facebook, Groupon agrees that a brief stay of the proceedings will promote judicial economy
`
`and adopts the positions set forth by Samsung and Facebook in their motions to stay. Although
`
`the infringement contentions served on Groupon were not as voluminous as those served upon
`
`Samsung, they are equally vague. Given the vague nature of the contentions, complying with the
`
`discovery and disclosure obligations will nonetheless require significant investment of time and
`
`resources by Groupon. Furthermore, asking the Court to address issues related to discovery and
`
`disclosure would be unnecessary should the Court grant the motion to transfer. Thus, until the
`
`motion to transfer is decided, the other proceedings in this case should be stayed.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For all of the foregoing reasons, Groupon respectfully requests that this Court grant this
`
`motion to stay proceedings until the resolution of the Motion to Transfer Venue.
`
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-cgc Document 28 Filed 02/01/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID 221
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ John S. Golwen
`
`John S. Golwen (TN BPR #014324)
`Annie T. Christoff (TN BPR #026241)
`BASS, BERRY & SIMS, PLC
`100 Peabody Place, Suite 900
`Memphis, Tennessee 38103
`Tel: (901) 543-5900
`Fax: (901) 543-5999
`Email: jgolwen@bassberry.com
` achristoff@bassberry.com
`
`Of Counsel:
`Jeanne M. Gills
`Jason J. Keener
`Ruben J. Rodrigues
`FOLEY & LARDNER LLP
`321 North Clark Street, Suite 2800
`Chicago, Illinois 60654
`Tel: (312) 832-4500
`Fax: (312) 832-4700
`Email: jkeener@foley.com
` jmgills@foley.com
` rrodrigues@foley.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Groupon, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`Dated: February 1, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-cgc Document 28 Filed 02/01/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID 222
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION
`
`I, John S. Golwen, attorney for Defendant Groupon, Inc, certify that I communicated with
`
`Richard Carter, counsel for the Plaintiff, on February 1, 2013, regarding Defendant’s intention to
`
`file this motion. Mr. Carter indicated that Plaintiff opposes the motion and cannot agree to the
`
` / s/ John S. Golwen
`
`
`
`
`stay requested.
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on February 1, 2013, all counsel of record who are deemed to have
`
`consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via the Court’s
`
`CM/ECF system.
`
`
`
` / s/ John S. Golwen
`
`
`
`5
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
