Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 58 Filed 08/12/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID 711
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:12-cv-02824 JPM tmp
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:12-cv-02825 JPM tmp
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`)))))))))))
`
`)))))))))))
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG
`TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA, LLC,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS
`AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`PLAINTIFF B.E. TECHNOLOGY L.L.C.’S MEMORANDUM IN OPPOSITION TO
`DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR EXTENSION OF TIME
`
`Dated: August 12, 2013
`
`
`
`
`Richard M. Carter (TN B.P.R. #7285)
`Adam C. Simpson (TN B.P.R. #24705)
`MARTIN, TATE, MORROW & MARSTON, P.C.
`6410 Poplar Avenue, Suite 1000
`Memphis, TN 38119-4839
`Telephone: (901) 522-9000
`
`Robert E. Freitas (CA Bar No. 80948)
`Craig R. Kaufman (CA Bar No. 159458)
`Daniel J. Weinberg (CA Bar No. 227159)
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 58 Filed 08/12/13 Page 2 of 7 PageID 712
`
`
`Qudus B. Olaniran (CA Bar No. 267838)
`FREITAS TSENG & KAUFMAN LLP
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 593-6300
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 58 Filed 08/12/13 Page 3 of 7 PageID 713
`
`
`Plaintiff B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (“B.E.”) respectfully responds to defendants Samsung
`
`Telecommunications America, LLC’s (“STA”) and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s
`
`(“SEA”) (together “the defendants”) motion for extension of time. The defendants seek
`
`additional time to meet their Local Patent Rules (“LPR”) 3.3 and 3.4 obligations pending the
`
`Court’s resolution of the defendants’ motion to compel supplemental infringement contentions
`
`and stay certain discovery obligations. See SEA D.E. 50.1 There is no basis for the requested
`
`extension of time.
`
`The defendants seek modification of the recently agreed upon deadline for providing non-
`
`infringement contentions and accompanying document production. See SEA D.E. 51. The
`
`defendants made their request five days after the parties submitted the agreed upon schedule to
`
`the Court. See SEA D.E. 56. The defendants agreed to the case schedule knowing full well that
`
`B.E. contends its infringement contentions are sufficient under the LPR and do not require
`
`supplementation. See SEA D.E. 57-3. There is no basis for agreeing to a case schedule, which
`
`was adopted by the Court, see SEA D.E. 56, and immediately seeking modifications of that
`
`schedule.
`
`The defendants request a twenty-eight (28) day extension of time to comply with the LPR
`
`after B.E. serves supplemental infringement contentions if their motion to compel is granted or a
`
`twenty-one (21) day extension if their motion to compel is denied. There is no basis for such a
`
`win-win. If the defendants’ motion is denied, they will have already had the time it takes the
`
`Court to decide the motion to compel plus the more than seven months since B.E. served its
`
`initial infringement contention to formulate their non-infringement contentions. An additional
`
`twenty-one day extension is excessive and undeserved. Presumably, by filing this motion for
`
`
`1 Where the documents filed in STA and SEA are identical, B.E. will refer to the document entry
`number on SEA’s docket.
`
`- 1 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 58 Filed 08/12/13 Page 4 of 7 PageID 714
`
`
`extension of time, the defendants do not intend to satisfy their obligations under LPR 3.3 and 3.4
`
`in accordance with the case schedule. See SEA D.E. 56. Regardless of the outcome of the
`
`defendants’ motion to compel, the defendants apparently have maneuvered into a position to
`
`simply take an extension of time despite the requirements of the case schedule.
`
`As discussed in detail in B.E.’s memorandum in opposition to the defendants’ motion to
`
`compel, B.E.’s initial infringement contentions are adequate under the LPR. See SEA D.E. 57.
`
`B.E.’s initial infringement contentions provide “reasonable notice to the defendant why [B.E.]
`
`believes it has a reasonable chance of proving infringement and raise a reasonable inference that
`
`all accused products infringe.” SEA D.E. 57-6. The defendants demonstrated at the initial case
`
`management conference a deep understanding of the asserted patent and their initial thinking on
`
`why their products do not infringe. The defendants know how their own products work and they
`
`have been in possession of B.E.’s contentions for more than seven months. The defendants do
`
`not require more information from B.E. or additional time to provide their initial non-
`
`infringement contentions. Moreover, as noted in B.E.’s opposition brief, the defendants do not
`
`cite to any authority supporting a stay of non-infringement contentions pending the resolution of
`
`a motion to compel supplemental infringement contentions. SEA D.E. 57 at 19-20. Thus, the
`
`defendants should be required to comply with their agreement to the current case schedule. See
`
`SEA D.E. 56.
`
`The defendants’ requested extension is not brief and is prejudicial to B.E. The
`
`defendants claim that the requested extension would “ensure 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 B.E.’s initial infringement contentions. See SEA D.E. 51 at 2.
`
`(emphasis in original). The length of B.E.’s initial infringement contentions is not grounds for
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 58 Filed 08/12/13 Page 5 of 7 PageID 715
`
`
`granting an extension of time or delaying compliance with the case schedule. Id. The
`
`defendants have had B.E.’s contentions for more than seven months. There has been more than
`
`enough time to understand and prepare non-infringement contentions. B.E. will be prejudiced by
`
`delay because B.E. will have less time to analyze the defendants’ non-infringement contentions,
`
`whenever those contentions are provided, before having to make substantive decisions with
`
`respect to upcoming deadlines in the case schedule, including, amending pleadings and
`
`identifying terms for construction. See SEA D.E. 56. Moreover, these deadlines may pass
`
`before or arrive shortly after the Court rules on the defendants’ motion to compel. Contrary to
`
`the defendants’ assertion, it is probable that granting the defendants’ requested extension will
`
`result in the delay of other deadlines in the case schedule, which was adopted in all of the
`
`pending B.E. cases to keep them moving forward together. This case has already been delayed
`
`and the defendants’ request will only add more delay. See STA D.E. 33; SEA D.E. 37 (stay
`
`pending order on motions to transfer).
`
`For the foregoing reasons, B.E. respectfully requests that the Court deny the defendants’
`
`request for an extension of time for the defendants to comply with their obligations under the
`
`LPR 3.3 and 3.4 pending the resolution of the defendants’ motion to compel.
`
`Dated: August 12, 2013
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`/s/Daniel Weinberg
`Robert E. Freitas (CA Bar No. 80948)
`Craig R. Kaufman (CA Bar No. 159458)
`Daniel J. Weinberg (CA Bar No. 227159)
`Qudus B. Olaniran (CA Bar No. 267838)
`FREITAS TSENG & KAUFMAN LLP
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 593-6300
`Facsimile: (650) 593-6301
`rfreitas@ftklaw.com
`ckaufman@ftklaw.com
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 58 Filed 08/12/13 Page 6 of 7 PageID 716
`
`
`dweinberg@ftklaw.com
`qolaniran@ftklaw.com
`
`
`Richard M. Carter (TN B.P.R. #7285)
`Adam C. Simpson (TN B.P.R. #24705)
`MARTIN, TATE, MORROW & MARSTON, P.C.
`6410 Poplar Avenue, Suite 1000
`Memphis, TN 38119-4839
`Telephone: (901) 522-9000
`Facsimile: (901) 527-3746
`rcarter@martintate.com
`asimpson@martintate.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff B.E. Technology, L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 58 Filed 08/12/13 Page 7 of 7 PageID 717
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on August 12, 2013, a true and correct copy of the
`foregoing was electronically filed with the United States District Court for the Western District
`of Tennessee and was served on counsel by the Court’s electronic filing notification.
`
`s/Daniel J. Weinberg
` Daniel J. Weinberg
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -