Case 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp Document 29 Filed 01/10/13 Page 1 of 7 PageID 125
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`Defendant.
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`Case No. 2:12-cv-2829 JPM-tmp
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`PATENT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE NOTICE
`
`Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 2.1(a), Plaintiff B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (“B.E.”) and
`
`Defendant Microsoft Corporation (“Microsoft”) jointly submit this Patent Scheduling
`
`Conference Notice informing the Court:
`
`(1)
`
`Scheduling for a Patent Scheduling Conference
`
`B.E.: B.E.’s position is this action is ripe to be scheduled for a Patent Scheduling
`
`Conference. B.E. believes that the Court should hold a consolidated conference to
`
`address consolidation of the related cases and other issues related to judicial economy
`
`and efficiency.
`
`Microsoft: Microsoft believes that the action is not ripe for a Patent Scheduling
`
`Conference. Now that it has received Plaintiff’s infringement allegations, Microsoft will
`
`be filing a motion to transfer the action to the Western District of Washington, or
`
`alternatively to the Northern District of California, and believes that it would be
`
`premature to hold a Patent Scheduling Conference before the Court addresses Microsoft’s
`
`transfer motion.
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp Document 29 Filed 01/10/13 Page 2 of 7 PageID 126
`
`(2) Modifications to the Local Patent Rules
`
`B.E.: B.E.’s position is this action should be consolidated with the other B.E.
`
`actions pending before this Court for consolidated claim construction proceedings and a
`
`trial on invalidity and unenforceability of the patents-in-suit1 and that no modifications to
`
`the deadlines set by the Patent Local Rules are necessary, beyond any minor
`
`modifications necessary to synchronize the actions.
`
`Microsoft: As set forth below, Microsoft objects to consolidation with the
`
`eighteen other unrelated B.E. Technology actions currently pending before the Court and
`
`believes doing so is improper and would be highly prejudicial, particularly for any
`
`portion of the trial. Should the Court consider consolidation, Microsoft respectfully
`
`requests that the parties be allowed the opportunity to fully brief this issue and request a
`
`hearing. If the Court is nonetheless inclined to hold a consolidated claim construction
`
`hearing, Microsoft proposes that Defendants be permitted separate claim construction
`
`disclosures and briefing at Defendants’ option, with two weeks additional time for each
`
`
`1 ’314 Patent: B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc., 2:12-cv-02769 JPM-tmp; B.E.
`Technology, L.L.C. v. Groupon, Inc., 2:12-cv-02781 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v.
`Match.com L.L.C., 2:12-cv-02834 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. People Media, Inc.,
`2:12-cv-02833 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Pandora Media, Inc., 2:12-cv-02782 JPM-
`tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. LinkedIn Corporation, 2:12-cv-02772 JPM-tmp; B.E.
`Technology, L.L.C. v. Spark Networks, Inc., 2:12-cv-02832 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v.
`Twitter, Inc., 2:12-cv-02783 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Google Inc., 2:12-cv-02830
`JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Apple Inc., 2:12-cv-02831 JPM-tmp.
`For ’290 Patent: B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Amazon Digital Services, Inc., 2:12-cv-02767 JPM-
`tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 2:12-cv-02823 JPM-tmp; B.E.
`Technology, L.L.C. v. Motorola Mobility Holdings LLC, 2:12-cv-02866 JPM-tmp; B.E.
`Technology, L.L.C. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 2:12-cv-02825 JPM-tmp; B.E.
`Technology, L.L.C. v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, 2:12-cv-02824 JPM-tmp;
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Sony Computer Entertainment America LLC, 2:12-cv-02826 JPM-
`tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Sony Electronic Inc., 2:12-cv-02828 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology,
`L.L.C. v. Sony Mobile Communications (USA) Inc., 2:12-cv-02827 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology,
`L.L.C. v. Google Inc., 2:12-cv-02830 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Apple Inc., 2:12-cv-
`02831 JPM-tmp.
`
`- 2 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp Document 29 Filed 01/10/13 Page 3 of 7 PageID 127
`
`such deadline under the Patent Local Rules to allow for coordination among Defendants
`
`wherever possible.
`
`Microsoft believes that the Initial Non-Infringement Contentions and related
`
`production provisions set forth in Patent Local Rules 3.3 and 3.4 should be extended by
`
`56 days to be due on the same date as Microsoft’s Initial Invalidity and Unenforceability
`
`Contentions. Such an extension would allow for analysis of B.E. Technology’s
`
`allegations against many different Microsoft products, and for entry of a protective order
`
`governing the production of highly confidential technical information, including source
`
`code. Such source code comprises trade secrets and other highly confidential technical
`
`information, requiring specific protections that are not set forth in the Appendix A to the
`
`District’s Patent Local Rules.
`
`Microsoft also believes based on the complexity of the case, multiple patents and
`
`various accused products and potential third-party prior art that the procedures of Patent
`
`Local Rule 4.7 should be amended to provide for the close of fact discovery 60 (rather
`
`than 30) days following issuance of the Court’s claim construction ruling and Patent
`
`Local Rule 5.1(b) should be amended to provide for initial expert witness disclosures 90
`
`(rather than 60) days following issuance of the Court’s claim construction ruling.
`
`Additionally, Microsoft believes that the deadline for Final non-infringement
`
`contentions, invalidity contentions and unenforceability contentions should be extended
`
`until 30 days following issuance of the Court’s claim construction ruling. This will allow
`
`some time for evaluating any final infringement contentions.
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp Document 29 Filed 01/10/13 Page 4 of 7 PageID 128
`
`(3)
`
`Case Management Issues
`
`B.E.: B.E.’s position is this action should be consolidated, for claim construction,
`
`discovery, and trial on issues of invalidity and unenforceability, with all of the other
`
`patent infringement actions filed by B.E. in this Court involving the same patents at issue.
`
`B.E. believes that there are no other case management issues that would impact
`
`any party’s ability to conform to the Local Patent Rules.
`
`Microsoft: Microsoft objects to consolidation with the eighteen other unrelated
`
`actions and its position is that such consolidation is improper and highly prejudicial,
`
`particularly for any portion of the trial. B.E.’s allegations against different defendants are
`
`directed against a wide range of very different technologies and unrelated products (a fact
`
`acknowledged by B.E. insofar as it is not seeking a consolidated trial on infringement and
`
`filed these cases as separate actions). B.E. Technology has accused independently
`
`developed, products. There will be significant factual differences regarding the features
`
`and functionality of the accused products, and in turn what prior art is most relevant for
`
`trial in each case depending on plaintiff’s specific infringement claims against each
`
`defendant. Accordingly, Microsoft believes any consolidated proceedings or trial –
`
`including trial on invalidity and unenforceability – would be improper and highly
`
`prejudicial.
`
`As noted above, if the Court is nonetheless inclined to hold a consolidated claim
`
`construction hearing, Microsoft requests the option for separate claim construction
`
`disclosures and briefing, with additional time for coordination among the Defendants
`
`where possible.
`
`- 4 -
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp Document 29 Filed 01/10/13 Page 5 of 7 PageID 129
`
`Regarding discovery, Microsoft believes that some coordination on discovery
`
`may be possible, but that discovery should not be consolidated generally across nineteen
`
`different cases. Rather, the parties should meet and confer with respect to coordination of
`
`discovery that may be common across multiple cases and submit a discovery plan with
`
`any such agreements prior to the patent scheduling conference.
`
`
`
`Dated: January 10, 2013
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`By: s/Craig R. Kaufman
`Robert E. Freitas (CA Bar No. 80948)
`Craig R. Kaufman (CA Bar No. 159458)
`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
`ckaufman@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.
`
`
`
`
`
`- 5 -
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp Document 29 Filed 01/10/13 Page 6 of 7 PageID 130
`
`
`
`
`By: s/ Bradley E. Trammel
`
`(per email consent dated 1/10/13)
`Bradley E. Trammell (TN #13980)
`Adam Baldridge (TN #023488)
`Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell &
`Berkowitz, P.C.
`165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
`Memphis, TN 38103
`Telephone: 901.577.2121
`Email: btrammell@bakerdonelson.com
`
`Kelly C. Hunsaker (Pro Hac Vice)
`Leeron G. Kalay (Pro Hac Vice)
`FISH & RICHARDSON P.C.
`500 Arguello Street, Suite 500
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Telephone: (650) 839-5070
`hunsaker@fr.com
`kalay@fr.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION
`
`
`
`- 6 -
`
`Dated: January 10, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp Document 29 Filed 01/10/13 Page 7 of 7 PageID 131
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on this 10th day of January, 2013, a copy of the foregoing was
`filed through the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
`Bradley E. Trammell
`Adam Baldridge
`Baker, Donelson, Bearman, Caldwell & Berkowitz
`165 Madison Avenue, Suite 2000
`Memphis, Tennessee 38103
`Tel: (901) 577-2121
`Fax: (901) 577-2102
`btrammell@bakerdonelson.com
`abaldridge@bakerdonelson.com
`
`Kelly C. Hunsaker
`Leeron G. Kalay
`Fish & Richardson, P.C.
`500 Arguello Street
`Redwood City, CA 94063
`Tel: (650)839-5070
`hunsaker@fr.com
`kalay@fr.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Craig R. Kaufman
`Craig R. Kaufman
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 7 -