`
`
`
`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
`
`
`NOTICE OF CORRECTION
`
`Samsung Electronics America,
`
`Inc.
`
`Defendants
`
`(“SEA”)
`
`and
`
`Samsung
`
`Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”, collectively, with SEA, “Samsung”) notify the
`
`Court that the Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Stay Pending Inter Partes Review
`
`filed with the Court on November 22, 2013 [Case No. 2:12-cv-2824 (Doc. 63-1); Case No. 2:12-
`
`cv-2825 (Doc. 66-1)] contains a time-period miscalculation that warrants correction. The
`
`miscalculation was made in the following two sentences of the Memorandum:
`
`-
`
`“If B.E. chooses to file a preliminary response to any of the petitions against the ’290
`patent, B.E. must file such a response within three months of being served with the
`petition—i.e., between January 7 and January 9, 2014, depending on the petition. See
`35 U.S.C. § 313; 37 C.F.R. § 42.107(b).” (Samsung’s Memo. in Support of Mot. to
`Stay Pending Inter Partes Review, at 4 (emphasis added));
`
`
`
`
`-1-
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 71 Filed 11/29/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID 1223
`
`
`
`-
`
`“[t]he PTO is statutorily obligated to grant or deny each of Defendants’ petitions
`within six months of its filing—i.e., between April 7 and April 9, 2014. 35 U.S.C. §
`314(b).” (Id. (emphasis added)).
`
`
`The corrected Memorandum—attached hereto—will replace those statements with a statement
`
`that B.E.’s response is due “no later than three months after the date of a notice indicating that
`
`the request to institute an inter partes review has been granted a filing date.” 37 CFR 42.107(b).
`
`It will also state that B.E.’s response is thus due on January 15, 2014, and that, as a result, the
`
`PTO’s decision granting or denying the petitions is due by April 15, 2014.
`
`Samsung hereby re-files the Memorandum in Support of their Motion to Stay Pending
`
`Inter Partes Review (attached hereto).
`
`DATE:
`
`November 29, 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
`Facsimile:
`(901) 543-5999
`state@bassberry.com
`Email:
`
`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
`pettusr@gtlaw.com
`Email:
`
`
`raskinj@gtlaw.com
`
`
`macleanj@gtlaw.com
`
`Nicholas A. Brown (admitted pro hac vice)
`GREENBERG TRAURIG, LLP
`-2-
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp Document 71 Filed 11/29/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID 1224
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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 71 Filed 11/29/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID 1225
`
`
`
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`12604434.1
`
`
`
`12604434.1
`
`
`
`-4-
Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.
After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.
Accept $ Charge
Still Working On It
This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.
Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.
A few More Minutes ... Still Working
It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.
Thank you for your continued patience.
This document could not be displayed.
We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.
Your account does not support viewing this document.
Set your membership
status to view this document.
With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll
get a whole lot more, including:
- Up-to-date information for this case.
- Email alerts whenever there is an update.
- Full text search for other cases.
- Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.
One Moment Please
The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.
Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.
Your document is on its way!
If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.
Sealed Document
We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.
If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.
Access Government Site
