`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
`(USA) INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Case No. 2:12-CV-2827 JPM tmp
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR ORAL ARGUMENT, MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT,
`AND CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION
`
`MOTION
`
`Plaintiff B.E. Technology L.L.C. (“B.E.”) moves this Honorable Court to allow oral
`
`argument at a hearing on defendant Sony Mobile Communications (USA), Inc.’s (“SMC”)
`
`Motion to Transfer Venue Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Concurrently herewith, B.E.
`
`requests that the Court also permit oral argument on the nearly identical transfer motions filed by
`
`Google, Inc. (“Google”), Amazon Digital Services, Inc. (“Amazon”), LinkedIn, Inc.
`
`(“LinkedIn”), Groupon, Inc. (“Groupon”), Pandora Media, Inc. (“Pandora”), Twitter, Inc.
`
`(“Twitter”), Barnes & Noble, Inc. (“Barnes & Noble”), Samsung Telecommunications America,
`
`LLC (“STA”), Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”), Sony Computer Entertainment
`
`America LLC (“SCEA”), Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”), Sony Electronics, Inc. (“SEI”),
`
`Microsoft Corp. (“Microsoft”), Apple, Inc. (“Apple”), Spark Networks, Inc. (“Spark”), People
`
`Media, Inc. (“People Media”), Match.com L.L.C. (“Match”), and Motorola Mobility Holdings
`
`LLC (“Motorola”) (collectively with SMC, the “B.E. defendants”). A hearing on these motions
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02827-JPM-tmp Document 40 Filed 03/18/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 224
`
`will (a) enable B.E. adequately to respond to the arguments and evidence presented by the B.E.
`
`defendants’ reply memoranda, and (b) provide the Court a forum to ask any questions it may
`
`have before deciding these important motions.
`
`MEMORANDUM
`
`The arguments in favor of conducting a hearing on the B.E. defendant’s motions to
`
`transfer are set forth in the memorandum supporting the motion for oral argument filed in B.E.
`
`Technology L.L.C. v. Google, Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-02830 JPM tmp. B.E. hereby incorporates
`
`by reference that document to avoid repeating duplicative information.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONSULATION
`
`Richard M. Carter, counsel for B.E., consulted telephonically with counsel for SMC,
`
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, who stated that SMC did not consent but would not oppose this motion
`
`for oral argument so long as B.E.’s motion does not seek a hearing at which testimony would be
`
`taken or exhibits would be offered and provided that B.E. did not ask for specific allocations or
`
`limitations of time per party. B.E. makes no request as to the format and structure of any
`
`hearing.
`
`
`
`Dated: March 18, 2013
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`s/Daniel J. Weinberg
`Robert E. Freitas (CA Bar No. 80948)
`Craig R. Kaufman (CA Bar No. 159458)
`Daniel J. Weinberg (CA Bar No. 227159)
`James Lin (CA Bar No. 241472)
`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
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02827-JPM-tmp Document 40 Filed 03/18/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID 225
`
`ckaufman@ftklaw.com
`dweinberg@ftklaw.com
`jlin@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.
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on March 18, 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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -