Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 31-2 Filed 01/22/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID 131
`Case 2:12—cv—O2825—JPM—tmp Document 31-2 Filed 01/22/13 Page 1 of 4 Page|D 131
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`2: 12-CV-02824-JPM-tmp
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`
`AMERICA LLC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`CIVIL ACTION NO.
`2: 12-CV—O2825-JPM—tmp
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`
`INC.,
`
`Defendants.
`
`DECLARATION OF JUSTIN A. MACLEAN IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG’S MOTION
`O TRANSFER VENUE TO THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`.T_:_?__.:___:_:______
`
`1, 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.
`
`I submit this declaration in support of
`
`Defendants Samsung Telecommunications America LLC (“STA”) and Samsung Electronics
`
`America, Inc.’s (“SEA”) (collectively, “Samsung”) Motion to Transfer Venue to the District of
`
`New Jersey (“Motion”).
`
`This declaration is based upon facts of which I have personal
`
`knowledge.
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 31-2 Filed 01/22/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID 132
`Case 2:12—cv—O2825—JPM—tmp Document 31-2 Filed 01/22/13 Page 2 of 4 Page|D 132
`
`2.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 1 is a true and correct copy of B.E. Technology,
`
`L.L.C’s (“B.E. Technology”) Preliminary Infringement Contentions under Local Patent Rule 3.1
`
`(“PICS”), excluding claim charts which were appended as Appendix A, served on STA on
`
`January 7, 2013.
`
`3.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 2 is a true and correct copy of B.E. Technology’s
`
`Preliminary Infringement Contentions under Local Patent Rule 3.1 (“PICS”), excluding claim
`
`charts which were appended as Appendix A, served on SEA on January 7, 2013.
`
`4.
`
`B.E. Technology’s PICS accuse SEA and STA of infringement through the use of
`
`software developed by Google, Microsoft, Amazon, Barnes & Noble, Hulu, Netflix, and Kno
`
`Inc. (collectively, the “Third Parties”). See Exhibits 1 and 2. On information and belief, Google,
`
`Inc.
`
`is headquartered in Mountain View, CA (see www.google.com/intl/en/about/company/);
`
`Microsoft
`
`Corporation
`
`is
`
`headquartered
`
`in
`
`Redmond,
`
`WA
`
`(see
`
`http://support.microsoft.com/contactus/); Barnes & Noble, Inc. is headquartered in New York,
`
`NY (see http://www.barnesandnoble.com/help/ cds2.asp?PID=8184) and has further relevant
`
`offices in Palo Alto, CA (see Case No. 2:12-cv-2823-JPM—tmp, Docket No. 28-2); Hulu, Inc. is
`
`headquartered
`
`in
`
`Los
`
`Angeles,
`
`CA
`
`(see
`
`http://www.hoovers.corn/company-
`
`information/cs/company-profile.Hulu_LLC
`
`.a0f9c4l9dd820480.html);
`
`Netflix,
`
`Inc.
`
`is
`
`headquartered
`
`in
`
`Los
`
`Gatos,
`
`CA
`
`(see
`
`http://www.hoovers.com/company-
`
`inforrnation/cs/company-profile.Netflix_Inc.
`
`f336f5bc15a3la6c.html);
`
`and Kno
`
`Inc.
`
`is
`
`headquartered in Santa Clara, CA (see http://www.kno.con1/corp).
`
`5.
`
`On January 17, 2013, another GT associate, at my direction and under my
`
`supervision, performed a search of a reputable and widely used travel website for availability of
`
`round-trip, direct commercial flights from third-party locations to Memphis, TN and Newark, NJ
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 31-2 Filed 01/22/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID 133
`Case 2:l2—cv—O2825—JPM—tmp Document 31-2 Filed 01/22/13 Page 3 of 4 Page|D 133
`
`for the exemplary dates of February 5, 2013. As of January 17, 2013, there were a total of two
`
`(2) direct flights from these third-party locations to Memphis, TN. On the other hand, there were
`
`at least twenty-seven (27) direct flights from these third-party locations to Newark, NJ.
`
`6.
`
`Specifically, as of January 17, 2013, there were no available direct commercial
`
`flights from San Francisco/Bay Area, CA to Memphis, TN; there were no available direct
`
`commercial flights from Seattle/Redmond WA to Memphis, TN; there were 2 available direct
`
`commercial flights from Los Angeles, CA to Memphis, TN. As of January 17, 2013, there were
`
`at least 12 available commercial flights from San Francisco/Bay Area, CA to Newark, NJ; there
`
`were at least 8 available direct commercial flights from Seattle/Redmond WA to Newark, NJ;
`
`there were at least 7 available direct commercial flights from Los Angeles, CA to Newark, NJ.
`
`7.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 3 is a true and correct copy of B.E. Technology’s
`
`September 6, 2012 business entity registration with the State of Tennessee.
`
`8.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 4 is a true and correct copy of a printout of search
`
`results from an Accurint (Lexis) database, showing a record of all of B.E. Technology’s
`
`corporate filings.
`
`9.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 5 is a true and correct copy of U.S. Pat. Publ. No.
`
`2012/0158512, dated June 2012, identifying B.E. Technology’s location as Saginaw, Michigan.
`
`10.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 6 is a true and correct copy of “Memphis area firm
`
`sues tech giants for patent infringement,” Ted Evanoff, The Commercial Appeal, November 20,
`
`2012.
`
`ll.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 7 are true and correct copies of printouts of select
`
`webpages from the website of the law firm of Reising, Ethington, Barnes, Kisselle, P.C.
`
`(http://www.reising.com/).
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 31-2 Filed 01/22/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID 134
`Case 2:l2—cv—O2825—JPM—tmp Document 31-2 Filed 01/22/13 Page 4 of 4 Page|D 134
`
`12.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 8 is a true and correct copy of Geotag,
`
`Inc. v.
`
`Aromatique, Inc., No. 2:10-cv-570, slip. op. (E.D. Tex. Jan. 14, 2013) (Dkt. No. 585).
`
`13.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 9 is a true and correct copy of selected Federal Court
`
`Management Statistics for the District of New Jersey and the Western District of Tennessee,
`
`available at www.uscourts.gov (accessed January 18, 2013).
`
`14.
`
`Attached hereto as Exhibit 10 is a true and correct copy of the Declaration of
`
`Martin David Hoyle in Support of Plaintiffs Memorandum in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion
`
`to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), Docket No. 29-1, in the litigation captioned
`
`B.E. Technology, L.L. C. v. Google Inc., No. 2:12-cv-2830 JPM tmp.
`
`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, New York on January 22, 2013.