`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MICROSOFT CORPORATION,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`No.: 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp
`
`
`ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO STAY
`
`Before the Court is Defendant Microsoft Corporation’s
`(“Defendant”) Motion To Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of
`its Motion To Transfer (ECF No. 40), filed February 8, 2013.
`For the reasons that follow, the Motion is 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
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp Document 41 Filed 02/11/13 Page 2 of 3 PageID 458
`
`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 case presents a similar set of circumstances.
`Plaintiff B.E. Technology, LLC, filed a patent-infringement
`action against Defendant on September 21, 2012. (ECF No. 1.)
`Defendant filed its Answer on December 31, 2012 (ECF No. 27),
`and a Motion To Transfer Venue on January 18, 2013 (ECF No. 30),
`seeking transfer to the United States District Court for the
`Western District of Washington, or in the alternative, the
`Northern District of California. Discovery will soon commence
`as Defendant’s Non-Infringement Contentions are due under the
`Local Patent Rules by February 19, 2013. Staying the
`proceedings — including the Local Patent Rule disclosures and
`fact discovery — will allow the Court to properly decide the
`pending Motion 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 —
`including Local Patent Rule disclosures and fact discovery — are
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp Document 41 Filed 02/11/13 Page 3 of 3 PageID 459
`
`hereby stayed pending the outcome of Defendant’s Motion To
`Transfer Venue and further Order by the Court.
`IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of February, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/ Jon P. McCalla________
`CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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
