`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`
`
`No.: 2:12-cv-02826-JPM-tmp
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`No. 2:12-cv-2827-JPM-tmp
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 2-12-cv-2828-JPM-tmp
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`)
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`v.
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT )
`AMERICA, LLC,
`
`
`)
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`v.
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
`)
`(USA), INC.,
`
`
`)
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`)
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`v.
`
`
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`SONY ELECTRONICS, INC.,
`)
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`)
`
`
`
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO STAY
`
`Before the Court is Defendant Sony Computer Entertainment
`America, LLC’s Motion To Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of
`its Motion To Transfer (No. 2:12-cv-2826-JPM-tmp, ECF No. 28);
`Defendant Sony Mobile Communications (USA), Inc.’s Motion To
`Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of its Motion To Transfer
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02828-JPM-tmp Document 30 Filed 02/11/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 127
`
`(No. 2:12-cv-2827-JPM-tmp, ECF No. 32); and Defendant Sony
`Electronics, Inc.’s Motion To Stay Proceedings Pending
`Resolution of its Motion To Transfer (No. 2-12-cv-2828-JPM-tmp,
`ECF No. 27), all filed February 7, 2013. For the reasons that
`follow, the Motions are GRANTED.
`“The decision whether to grant a stay of a particular
`action is within the inherent power of the Court and is
`discretionary.” Ellis v. Merck & Co., Inc., 06-1005-T/AN, 2006
`WL 448694 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 19, 2006). The Court is tasked with
`“control[ling] the disposition of the causes on its docket with
`economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for
`litigants.” Gray v. Bush, 628 F.3d 779, 786 (6th Cir. 2010)
`(quoting Landis v. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936))
`(internal quotation marks omitted). Applying this power in a
`recent patent case, the United States Court of Appeals for the
`Federal Circuit directed the litigants to file a motion to stay
`proceedings and for the district court to decide the motion to
`stay and a pending motion to transfer venue “before proceeding
`to any motion on the merits of the action.” In re Fusion-IO,
`Inc., 489 Fed. App’x 465, 465 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`The instant cases present similar sets of circumstances.
`Plaintiff B.E. Technology, LLC, filed patent-infringement
`actions against each Defendant on September 21, 2012.
`Defendants filed each Answer on December 31, 2012, and Motions
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02828-JPM-tmp Document 30 Filed 02/11/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID 128
`
`To Change Venue on January 28, 2013, in each case, seeking
`transfer to the United States District Court for the District of
`New Jersey. Discovery will soon commence as Defendants’ Non-
`Infringement Contentions are due under the Local Patent Rules by
`February 21, 2013. Staying the proceedings — including the
`Local Patent Rule disclosures and fact discovery — will allow
`the Court to properly decide the pending Motions to Change Venue
`in light of judicial economy and comity. See McDonnell Douglas
`Corp. v. Polin, 429 F.2d 30, 31 (3d Cir. 1970) (“Judicial
`economy requires that another district court should not burden
`itself with the merits of the action until it is decided that a
`transfer should be effected . . . .”).
`
`Therefore, the Court orders that all proceedings in each
`case — including Local Patent Rule disclosures and fact
`discovery — are hereby stayed pending the outcome of Defendants’
`Motions To Change Venue and further Orders by the Court.
`IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of February, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Jon P. McCalla________
`CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`3