`
`THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-2829 JPM
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT MICROSOFT CORPORATION’S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE TO
`THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON, OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE, TO
`THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`COMES NOW Microsoft Corporation, and files this Motion to Transfer Venue. For the
`
`reasons explained in full in the accompanying Memorandum of Law, Microsoft Corporation
`
`respectfully requests that the Court transfer this action, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1404, to the
`
`Western District of Washington, or in the alternative, to the Northern District of California.
`
`As discussed in Microsoft’s Memorandum of Law, this case has little connection to the
`
`Western District of Tennessee. Based upon the allegations set forth in B.E. Technology’s
`
`January 7, 2013 infringement contentions, it is clear that the center of the accused activity in this
`
`case is the Western District of Washington, where the vast majority of relevant U.S. witnesses
`
`and documents are located. For the convenience of the parties and witnesses, as well as the
`
`interest of justice, Microsoft respectfully requests transfer of this action to Western District of
`
`Washington.
`
`Alternatively, Microsoft respectfully requests transfer of this action to the Northern
`
`District of California, where Microsoft has significant operations relating to at least some of the
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp Document 30 Filed 01/18/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 133
`
`accused products and which generally is a far closer and more convenient forum for most
`
`witnesses likely to be called to testify.
`
`In accordance with the Local Rules of this Court, Microsoft is filing herewith a
`
`Memorandum of Law, a Certificate of Consultation, and a Proposed Order granting the relief
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`s/ Bradley E. Trammell
`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
`
` abaldridge@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
`
`requested herein.
`
`
`
`January 18, 2013
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp Document 30 Filed 01/18/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID 134
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(a)(1)(B), I hereby certify that on January 10, 2013, Leeron G.
`Kalay, counsel for Defendant Microsoft Corporation, consulted via telephone with counsel for
`Plaintiff B.E. Technology, L.L.C., Craig Kaufman, who informed Mr. Kalay that Plaintiff
`opposes this Motion.
`
`s/ Bradley E. Trammell
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`I hereby certify that on January 18, 2013, a true and correct copy of the foregoing
`document was electronically filed with the United States District Court for the Western District
`of Tennessee, and was served on all counsel by the court’s electronic filing notification or via
`email.
`
`s/ Bradley E. Trammell
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`3
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
