Case 2:12-cv-02826-SHM-dkv Document 14 Filed 10/24/12 Page 1 of 4 PageID 66
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-02826-SHM-dkv
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`)))))))))))
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT
`AMERICA LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`UNOPPOSED MOTION (INCLUDING MEMORANDUM) TO ENLARGE TIME
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC respectfully moves the Court to
`
`enter the accompanying proposed Order, enlarging the original time period for service of
`
`defendant’s response to the summons and complaint in this action to the date certain of
`
`December 31, 2012. As reflected in the Certificate of Consultation below, this requested
`
`enlargement of time is part of an agreement worked out with plaintiff’s counsel for the purpose
`
`of achieving certain consistencies in the schedules in multiple related patent infringement actions
`
`recently filed in this Court. Pursuant to that same agreement between the parties, the proposed
`
`Order also provides that the deadline for plaintiff’s initial patent infringement contentions and
`
`related document production under Local Patent Rules 3.1 and 3.2 will be January 7, 2013. This
`
`measure is included to prevent the seven-day period allowed for that infringement contention
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02826-SHM-dkv Document 14 Filed 10/24/12 Page 2 of 4 PageID 67
`
`
`disclosure, which runs from defendant’s response to the complaint, from overlapping with the
`
`holidays if defendant’s response is filed prior to the requested deadline.
`
`The plaintiff in this action filed a total of 19 patent infringement cases in this Court
`
`between September 9 and October 2, 2012. Some of the cases are assigned to Judge Mays, and
`
`some are assigned to Judge McCalla. The Magistrate Judge assignments in the cases likewise
`
`vary between Judges Vescovo, Pham, and Claxton. Undersigned counsel is currently engaged as
`
`local defense counsel in 7 of the cases. It is currently known that the defendants in at least some
`
`of the other cases, although served on various different dates (if served yet at all), will be moving
`
`for the same December 31 date-certain extension requested by defendant in this instant motion.
`
`The return on service upon defendant was filed on October 19 (Doc. 13).
`
`The relief requested is authorized by Fed.R.Civ.P. 6(b). Although the amount of
`
`extension time requested is not insignificant, several factors are respectfully submitted to make it
`
`reasonable. First, it does not cause the response date to greatly surpass the sixty-day period that
`
`would have applied if plaintiff had elected the alternative to formal service allowed by Rule 4(d).
`
`Second, as mentioned above, an extension of the same structure is expected to be
`
`requested by the defendants in at least some of the 18 other patent infringement actions filed by
`
`plaintiff in this Court between September 7 and October 2. Those cases have different filing
`
`dates, have or will have different dates of service, and therefore different original response dates,
`
`and the arrangement proposed will create the same date certain for defense responses (and
`
`subsequent events triggered thereby) in at least some of the cases.
`
`Third, with the impending holidays in late November and late December, the proposed
`
`extension for defendant’s response is sufficient to prevent any interference from loss of work
`
`days during that period.
`
`
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02826-SHM-dkv Document 14 Filed 10/24/12 Page 3 of 4 PageID 68
`
`
`Fourth, the corresponding fixation of plaintiff’s initial contention disclosure under LPR
`
`3.1 and 3.2 at January 7, 2013, likewise avoids holiday interference with the seven-day deadline
`
`for that, and will likewise result in at least some simplification of deadlines in other cases where
`
`the defendant makes a motion similar to this one.
`
`And last, but by no means least, substantial time is justified for defendant’s investigation
`
`of the claims in the complaint, particularly to the extent that claims made by the plaintiff under
`
`the same patents against the defendants in the 18 other cases turn out to be relevant in such
`
`investigation.1
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/Glen G. Reid, Jr. (#8184)
`Glen G. Reid, Jr.
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`Phone: 901.537.1000
`Facsimile: 901.537.1010
`greid@wyattfirm.com
`
`s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (#06389)
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`1715 Aaron Brenner Drive, Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120-4367
`Phone: 901.537.1000
`Facsimile: 901.537.1010
`mvorder-bruegge@wyattfirm.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
`
`
`
`1 / In making this motion, defendant does not imply any concession or contention at this time regarding
`any other issue that may arise with respect to the venue or management of this case or any similarity or
`difference between this case and any of the others filed by plaintiff. Without limiting the foregoing, this
`motion does not constitute a waiver of the non-joinder restrictions referred to in 35 U.S.C. 299(c).
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02826-SHM-dkv Document 14 Filed 10/24/12 Page 4 of 4 PageID 69
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION
`
`The undersigned attorney for defendant hereby certifies that prior to the filing of the
`
`foregoing motion, detailed consultation was held with Richard Carter, Esq., one of plaintiff’s
`
`attorneys, and resulted in authorization to state that plaintiff agrees to the entry of the Order
`
`proposed by this motion. Characterizations of the case, other cases, and similar matters
`
`contained in the text of this motion itself are the statements of defense counsel, and are not
`
`implied to be binding upon plaintiff or its counsel.
`
`s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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.
`
`60270556.1
`
`s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -