`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02828-JPM-tmp
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`SONY ELECTRONICS INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT SONY ELECTRONICS INC.’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING INTER PARTES REVIEW
`
`
`
`Defendant Sony Electronics Inc. (“SEL”) respectfully moves this Court for a stay of the
`
`proceedings in the above captioned case pending resolution of the five petitions for inter partes
`
`review (“IPR”) challenging the validity of U.S. Patent No. 6,771,290 (“the ’290 patent”).
`
`Plaintiff, B.E. Technology (“BET”) agrees that this case should be stayed pending resolution of
`
`those IPRs, provided that all of the cases in this Court involving that patent and/or related patent
`
`are also stayed. A stay should be granted because (i) there is a strong likelihood that some or all
`
`of the asserted claims in the ’290 patent will be found invalid by the USPTO and such a finding
`
`would moot these litigations and preserve judicial resources, (ii) a stay would allow the USPTO
`
`to apply its expertise in reassessing the scope and validity of the claims of the ’290 patent, (iii) a
`
`stay would not harm or prejudice BET as it has assented to a stay, and (iv) the defendants in
`
`virtually all related cases filed by BET will either move to stay their respective cases, or will not
`
`actively oppose entry of a stay in their cases.
`
`To eliminate the necessity of this Court reviewing what would otherwise be substantially
`
`duplicative factual and legal argument, the facts and law supporting this relief are set forth in
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02828-JPM-tmp Document 52-1 Filed 12/05/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 316
`
`
`detail in the memoranda and exhibits supporting the motions to stay filed in related actions by
`
`defendants Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Case No. 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp,
`
`Doc. 63 (as corrected by Doc. 67 and Attachment 1 thereto), and Samsung Electronics America
`
`Inc., Case No. 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp, Doc. 66 (as corrected by Doc. 71 and Attachment 1
`
`thereto), (collectively, “Samsung”). SEL incorporates those memoranda and their exhibits by
`
`reference.
`
`The various petitions for IPR demonstrate that there are strong factors in favor of finding
`
`the ’290 patent invalid. A stay is appropriate because a finding of invalidity during IPR
`
`proceedings would moot all these litigations entirely at an early stage, by invalidating the claims
`
`B.E. has asserted. Moreover, a stay would preserve judicial resources by ensuring that the
`
`planned Markman hearing covered only claims that were found to be valid after completion of
`
`the IPRs, if any. Furthermore, regardless of the outcome, staying these cases will allow the
`
`USPTO to apply its expertise in reassessing the scope and validity of the patents—before the
`
`Court tasks itself and the parties with doing the same. Last, BET will not be unduly prejudiced
`
`by any stay, since it has agreed to a stay.
`
`For these reasons, as well as those discussed in Samsung’s motions and associated
`
`memoranda and exhibits, SEL respectfully requests that the Court stay this litigation pending
`
`resolution of the IPR petitions filed against the ’290 patent.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02828-JPM-tmp Document 52-1 Filed 12/05/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID 317
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`/s/ Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.___________
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (#06389)
`Glen G. Reid, Jr. (#8184)
`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
`greid@wyattfirm.com
`
`
`
`OF COUNSEL
`
`/s/ John Flock __
`John Flock (pro hac vice)
`jflock@kenyon.com
`Michael E. Sander (admission pending)
`msander@kenyon.com
`KENYON & KENYON LLP
`One Broadway
`New York, NY 10004-1007
`212.425.7200
`
`Attorneys for Sony Electronics Inc.
`
`
`61074678.1
`12/5/2013 1:27 pm
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
