Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 66 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID 864
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02824-JPM-cgc
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA, LLC,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS AMERICA, LLC AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA INC.’S MOTION TO STAY LITIGATIONS
`PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Defendants
`
`Inc.
`
`(“SEA”)
`
`and
`
`Samsung
`
`Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”, collectively, with SEA, “Samsung”) respectfully
`
`move this Court for a stay of the instant litigation against Samsung pending resolution of the five
`
`petitions for inter partes review (“IPR”) that were filed challenging the validity of the ’290
`
`patent.1 As set forth in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, Samsung and Plaintiff B.E.
`
`Technology, LLC (“B.E. Tech.”) agree that this case should be stayed pending resolution of
`
`
`1 U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290 is referred to herein as “the ’290 patent.”
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 66 Filed 11/22/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID 865
`
`
`
`those IPR petitions—so long as all litigations related to the ’290 and ’314 patents2 are stayed.
`
`Each of the factors considered in deciding whether to stay litigations pending IPRs weighs
`
`strongly in favor of granting a stay. In fact, Samsung respectfully suggests that these
`
`considerations—the simplification of issues, the early stage of litigation, and the lack of
`
`prejudice to B.E.—are likely to apply equally in all of the litigations filed by Plaintiff B.E.
`
`Technology, LLC against the defendants in related actions before this Court3 and the Court
`
`should exercise its inherent power to stay them all.
`
`In support of their Motion, SEA and STA rely on the Memorandum in Support of Their
`
`Motion to Stay and the Declarations and Exhibits attached thereto, filed contemporaneously
`
`herewith.
`
`DATE:
`
`November 22, 2013
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Jonathan E. Nelson
`Shepherd D. Tate (TN BPR #05638)
`Jonathan E. Nelson (TN BPR #028029)
`BASS, BERRY & SIMS, PLC
`100 Peabody Place, Suite 900
`Memphis, Tennessee 38103
`Telephone: (901) 543-5900
`
`
`
`
`
`
`2 U.S. Patent No. 6,628,314 is referred to herein as “the ’314 patent.” Samsung understands that
`four IPRs have been filed against the ’314 patent.
`
` 3
`
` See B.E. v. Amazon Digital Servs., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-cgc; B.E. v. Facebook, Inc.,
`No. 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp; B.E. v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-dkv; B.E. v.
`Groupon, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-cgc; B.E. v. Pandora Media, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02782-
`JPM-cgc; B.E. v. Twitter, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-cgc; B.E. v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., No.
`2:12-cv-02823-JPM-tmp; B.E. v. STA, No. 2:12-cv-02824-cgc; B.E. v. SEA, No. 2:12-cv-02825-
`JPM-tmp; B.E. v. Sony Computer Entm’t Am., Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02826-JPM-tmp; B.E. v. Sony
`Mobile Commcn’s (USA) Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02827-JPM-dkv; B.E. v. Sony Elecs. Inc., No. 2:12-
`cv-02828-JPM-tmp; B.E. v. Microsoft Corp., No. 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp; B.E. v. Google Inc.,
`No. 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-cgc; B.E. v. Apple Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02831-JPM-cgc; B.E. v. People
`Media, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-dkv; B.E. v. Match.com, LLC, No. 2:12-cv-02834-JPM-
`dkv; B.E. v. Motorola Mobility Holdings, LLC, No. 2:12-cv-02866-JPM-dkv.
`
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 66 Filed 11/22/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID 866
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Facsimile:
`Email:
`
`
`(901) 543-5999
`state@bassberry.com
`jenelson@bassberry.com
`
`Richard C. Pettus (admitted pro hac vice)
`Joshua Raskin (admitted pro hac vice)
`Justin A. MacLean (admitted pro hac vice)
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`200 Park Avenue
`New York, NY 10166
`Telephone:
`(212) 801-9200
`Facsimile:
`(212) 801-6400
`Email:
`pettusr@gtlaw.com
`
`
`raskinj@gtlaw.com
`
`
`macleanj@gtlaw.com
`
`Nicholas A. Brown (admitted pro hac vice)
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`4 Embarcadero Center, Suite 3000
`San Francisco, CA 94111
`Telephone:
`(415) 655-1300
`Facsimile:
`(415) 707-2010
`Email:
`brownn@gtlaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendants, Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications
`America, LLC
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 66 Filed 11/22/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID 867
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION
`
`
`I, Jonathan Nelson, attorney for Defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and
`
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, certify that my co-counsel, Josh Raskin,
`
`communicated with Counsel for Plaintiff, Dan Weinberg, on November 22, 2013 via telephone
`
`regarding Defendants’ intention to file the foregoing Motion, and conferred with him to
`
`determine whether the Plaintiff would agree to the relief sought, such that the Motion could be
`
`presented as unopposed. Mr. Weinberg advised that the Plaintiff is not opposed to a stay of this
`
`case so long as all litigation involving the ‘290 and ‘314 patents is also stayed. Therefore, Mr.
`
`Weinberg confirmed that Plaintiff is not opposed to the relief sought.
`
` /s/ Jonathan Nelson
`Jonathan Nelson
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`
`
`The foregoing document was filed under the Court’s CM/ECF system, automatically
`
`effecting service on counsel of record for all other parties who have appeared in this action on
`
`the date of such service.
`
` /s/ Jonathan Nelson
`
`-4-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12591885.1
`
`
`
`12591885.1