Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 66-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID 885
`Case 2:12—cv—O2825—JPM—tmp Document 66-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 1 of 4 Page|D 885
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02824-JPM—tmp
`
`V.
`
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`
`AMERICA, LLC,
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv—02825—JPM-tmp
`
`V.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA
`
`INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`DECLARATION OF JUSTIN A. MACLEAN IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION
`
`TO STAY LITIGATIONS PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`I, Justin A. MacLean, hereby declare and state as follows:
`
`1.
`
`I am an associate in the New York office of Greenberg Traurig, LLP (“GT”),
`
`located at 200 Park Avenue, New York, NY 10166, and admitted pro hac vice before this Court.
`
`I submit this declaration in support of the Motion to Stay Litigations Pending Inter Partes
`
`Review (“Motion”) filed by Defendants Samsung Telecommunications America LLC (“STA”)
`
`and Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) (collectively, “Samsung”). This declaration is
`
`based upon facts of which I have personal knowledge.
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 66-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID 886
`Case 2:12—cv—O2825—JPM—tmp Document 66-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 2 of 4 Page|D 886
`
`2.
`
`Samsung filed an IPR petition with the Patent Office on October 9, 2013 seeking
`
`review of claims 2 and 3 of the ’290 patent and four other IPR petitions challenging the same
`
`claims of the ’290 patent Were filed at around the same time. Shortly after the filing of the IPR
`
`petitions, B.E. and the defendants in the 18 remaining actions B.E. filed in this District (the
`
`“Related Actions”) engaged in discussions regarding a potential stay of the Related Actions,
`
`Which discussions lasted for several Weeks. On November 22, counsel for B.E. and Samsung
`
`formally met-and-conferred regarding the Motion. During the meet-and-confer,
`
`the parties
`
`agreed to a stay of this case so long as all proceedings related to the ’290 and ’3 14 patents in the
`
`Related Actions are stayed.
`
`3.
`
`Counsel for Samsung has also discussed the stay issue with counsel for the
`
`defendants in the Related Actions. Based on those discussions, Samsung understands that most
`
`if not all of the defendants will either join in the request by moving to stay their respective cases,
`
`or will not oppose a stay (perhaps based on one or more conditions). For example, Apple has
`
`indicated that, at this time, it does not plan to request a stay of its case but also does not plan to
`
`actively oppose such a stay should the Court order a stay with respect to all the litigations. Apple
`
`is apparently concerned that, by not opposing a stay, it may be deemed in privity with Samsung
`
`and the other IPR-filer defendants moving for a stay and therefore be subject to the same
`
`estoppels as those defendants if the IPRs are not successful. We understand that Apple and the
`
`other defendants may file notices or other papers in their respective cases further explaining their
`
`positions on a potential stay.
`
`4.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of a Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290 (the “’29O patent”), filed With the United States
`
`Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) on October 9, 2013 by Samsung.
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 66-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID 887
`Case 2:12—cv—O2825—JPM—tmp Document 66-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 3 of 4 Page|D 887
`
`5.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of a Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of the ’290 patent, filed with the PTO on October 4, 2013 by Google, Inc.
`
`6.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of a Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of the ’290 patent, filed with the PTO on October 4, 2013 by Google, Inc.
`
`7.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of a Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of the ’290 patent, filed with the PTO on October 8, 2013 by Microsoft
`
`Corporation.
`
`8.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of a Petition for Inter
`
`Partes Review of the ’290 patent, filed with the PTO on October 9, 2013 by Sony Mobile
`
`Communications (USA) Inc.
`
`9.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of Docket Entry No. 85 in
`
`the matter styled One Stockduq Holdings, LLC v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., No. 2:l2-cv-03037-
`
`JPM—tmp (W.D. Tenn. Nov. 13, 2013).
`
`10.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 is a true and correct copy of a PTO publication
`
`entitled “Patent Trial and Appeal Board, AIA Progress, Statistics (as of 11/ 14/2013)”, available
`
`at http://www.uspto.g9v/ip/boards/bpai/stats/aia statistics 11 14 2013.pdf.
`
`11.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of a Decision to Initiate
`
`Trial for Inter Partes Review, in the matter styled Garmin Int’l, Inc. v. Cuozzo Speed Techs. LLC,
`
`No. IPR2012-00001, Paper No.1 15 (PTAB Jan. 9, 2013).
`
`12.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of a Decision Denying
`
`Institution of Inter Partes Review,
`
`in the matter styled Universal Remote Control,
`
`Inc. v.
`
`Universal Elecs., Inc. , No. IPR2013-00152, Paper No. 8 (Aug. 19, 2013).
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 66-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID 888
`Case 2:12—cv—O2825—JPM—tmp Document 66-2 Filed 11/22/13 Page 4 of 4 Page|D 888
`
`13.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of Docket Entry No. 53
`
`in the matter styled One Stockduq Holdings, LLC V. Becton, Dickinson & C0,, No. 2:12-cv-
`
`03037-JPM-tmp (W.D. Tenn. May 6,. 2013).
`
`I declare under the penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States that the
`
`foregoing is true and correct.
`
`Executed in New York, NY on November 22, 2013.