Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 51 Filed 07/24/13 Page 1 of 5 PageID 582
`
`
`
`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-tmp
`
`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’S AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA INC.’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
`
`Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Defendants
`
`Inc.
`
`(“SEA”)
`
`and
`
`Samsung
`
`Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”, collectively, with SEA, “Samsung”) respectfully
`
`move this Court to extend the deadline for Samsung to comply with Local Patent Rules 3.3 and
`
`3.4 pending the Court’s ruling on Samsung’s Motions to (a) Compel Supplemental Infringement
`
`Contentions That Comply With Local Patent Rule 3.1, and (b) Relieve Defendants of Certain
`
`Responsive Discovery Obligations Pending Service of Compliant Contentions (“Motion to
`
`Compel”). (No. 12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp (Doc. 46); No. 12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp (Doc. 50)).
`
`Specifically, Samsung requests that its deadline to comply with Local Patent Rules 3.3 and 3.4
`
`be extended from August 19, 2013 to twenty-eight (28) days after Plaintiff serves its
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 51 Filed 07/24/13 Page 2 of 5 PageID 583
`
`
`
`supplemented Infringement Contentions.1 Alternatively, should the Court deny Samsung’s
`
`Motion to Compel, Samsung requests that it have until twenty-one (21) days after the entry of
`
`the Court’s Order denying the Motion to Compel to comply with Local Patent Rules 3.3 and 3.4.
`
`As set forth in detail in the Motion to Compel, Plaintiff’s Infringement Contentions
`
`(“ICs”) fail to satisfy the requirements of Local Patent Rule 3.1. (See Mot. to Compel, at 6-11.)
`
`Forcing Samsung to guess at what is being accused, and to provide thousands of pages of
`
`responsive contentions without the level of guidance required under the Local Patent Rules, will
`
`undoubtedly lead to subsequent revisions and thereby impose significant unnecessary burdens on
`
`Samsung. Responding to Plaintiff’s vague and deficient ICs prior to the Court’s ruling on the
`
`Motion to Compel would, therefore, be an exercise in futility.
`
`The requested extension, however, ensures that the Court has adequate time to consider
`
`the merits of Samsung’s Motion to Compel without forcing Samsung to respond twice to over
`
`10,000 pages of infringement contentions. And, should the Court grant Samsung’s Motion to
`
`Compel, and Plaintiff serves properly supplemented infringement contentions, significant
`
`resources would be saved. In fact, even Plaintiff would benefit from receiving responsive non-
`
`infringement contentions from Samsung which will presumably be more detailed and focused on
`
`the issues actually in contention.
`
`At the same time, Plaintiff would suffer no prejudice as a result of such a brief extension.
`
`Indeed, even if the Motion to Compel is denied, Plaintiff will be in no materially worse position
`
`than it would have been had Samsung complied with its noninfringement obligations by August
`
`
`1 August 19, 2013 is thirty (30) days from entry of the last Order lifting the stay in the co-
`pending B.E. Tech. cases. The parties agreed to this deadline in the Joint Schedule Proposal
`submitted to the Court on July 19, 2013.
`
`
`
`-2-
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 51 Filed 07/24/13 Page 3 of 5 PageID 584
`
`
`
`19, 2013; the requested extension would have the limited effect of moving the deadlines relating
`
`to infringement/noninfringement contentions back a few weeks.2
`
`Finally, the orderly course of justice weighs in favor of an extension pending resolution
`
`of the Motion to Compel. As noted above, issues in this case will be simplified rather than
`
`become more complex as a result of a brief extension. Moreover, even if the Court were to deny
`
`the Motion to Compel, its reasoning and remarks would presumably provide guidance to
`
`Samsung as to how to even attempt to respond to the ICs as they currently stand. Accordingly,
`
`to serve the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice, it is respectfully submitted that
`
`the Court should extend the deadline for Samsung to comply with Local Patent Rules 3.3 and 3.4
`
`pending the resolution of Samsung’s Motion to Compel.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For the reasons set forth above, Samsung respectfully requests that this Court grant a
`
`brief extension pending resolution of Samsung’s Motion to Compel, and order that Samsung’s
`
`deadline to comply with Local Patent Rules 3.3 and 3.4 be extended to twenty-eight (28) days
`
`after Plaintiff serves its supplemented Infringement Contentions, or twenty-one (21) days after
`
`the entry of the Court’s Order denying Samsung’s Motion to Compel.
`
`DATE:
`
`July 24, 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 All remaining deadlines in the Joint Proposed Scheduling Order shall remain in place as set
`forth therein. Moreover, the Court has not yet conducted a patent scheduling conference and no
`discovery has been served beyond the ICs.
`
`
`
`-3-
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 51 Filed 07/24/13 Page 4 of 5 PageID 585
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`Attorneys for Defendants, Samsung Electronics
`America, Inc. and Samsung Telecommunications
`America, LLC
`
`
`
`-4-
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 51 Filed 07/24/13 Page 5 of 5 PageID 586
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION
`
`
`I, Jonathan Nelson, attorney for Defendants Samsung Electronics America, Inc. and
`
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, certify that I communicated telephonically with
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff, Richard Carter, on July 23, 2013 regarding the relief requested in the
`
`foregoing Motion. Mr. Carter advised that the Plaintiff did not consent to the relief requested in
`
` /s/ Jonathan Nelson
`Jonathan Nelson
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`this Motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`Jonathan Nelson
`
`
`
`12091182.1
`
`
`
`-5-