throbber
Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 31 Filed 01/17/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID 243
`
` 
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`
`C.A. No. 2:12-CV-02830-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`)))))))))))
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY L.L.C.,
`
`
`v.
`
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`MOTION AND MEMORANDUM FOR LEAVE TO FILE
`REPLY SUPPORTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO TRANSFER
`(INCLUDING CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION)
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Pursuant to Local Rule 7.2(c), defendant Google Inc. (“Google”) respectfully moves for
`
`leave to file a reply memorandum, not exceeding 10 pages in length, supporting Google’s
`
`pending motion to transfer venue under 28 U.S.C. 1404 (Dkt. 22). In support, defendant
`
`respectfully submits the following:
`
`
`
`1. This action was commenced on September 21, 2012 (Dkt. 1). Google timely
`
`responded to the complaint on December 31, 2012 (Dkt. 25). On December 19, 2012, Google
`
`filed a motion and supporting documents seeking transfer of this action to the Northern District
`
`of California under 28 U.S.C. 1404 (Dkt. 22). Plaintiff B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (“B.E.”) filed a
`
`response opposing such transfer on January 7, 2013 (Dkt. 29).
`
`
`
`2. Determining the most convenient venue is among the most important matters the
`
`Court will decide in this action. It determines how the Court will expend its resources managing
`
` 
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 31 Filed 01/17/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID 244
`
` 
`
`and deciding the case, how the case will proceed, and a potentially extended series of travel and
`
`lodging arrangements for a large number of people. Indeed, given the existence of 18 other cases
`
`filed by the same plaintiff involving common U.S. Patents (as detailed in the transfer motion)
`
`and multiple transfer motions, the Court’s decision will likely impact an extremely large number
`
`of people. The issue merits thorough consideration of all relevant facts, arguments, and
`
`authorities.
`
`
`
`3. As the moving party, Google bears the burden on the underlying motion. Allowing
`
`Google an opportunity for rebuttal, through a reply memorandum, comports with fair application
`
`of that burden.
`
`
`
`4. B.E.’s opposition includes arguments that were not predictable as certain or requiring
`
`pre-emptive or hypothetical argument in Google’s opening motion papers, including seemingly
`
`contradictory arguments that merit analysis. For example, B.E. has asserted on the one hand that
`
`this action should be consolidated with 18 others (Dkt. 30), yet its argument against transfer
`
`frames the issue as a matter between two parties’ circumstances and convenience. In addition,
`
`B.E. served its infringement contentions identifying for the first time a host of newly accused
`
`products, features and functionalities after Google filed its opening motion papers. Google
`
`should be afforded the opportunity to address how these newly accused products, features and
`
`functionalities impact transfer. The Court should have the benefit of full argument on Google’s
`
`motion for transfer.
`
`
`
`5. This action is in an early stage. No Scheduling Order has been entered. The proposed
`
`Order on this motion would require Google to file its reply memorandum within just 7 days from
`
`the grant of leave.
`
` 
`
`2
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 31 Filed 01/17/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID 245
`
` 
`
`
`
`6. Like any Section 1404 motion in a case of this type, briefing must address a number of
`
`issues and circumstances. While Google is committed to its reply being as concise as possible,
`
`coverage of the issues meriting a reply appears likely to require more than the 5 pages normally
`
`permitted by Local Rule 7.2(e). This motion respectfully requests authorization to use up to 10
`
`pages for such purpose.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`s/Glen G. Reid, Jr.
`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
`greid@wyattfirm.com
`
`s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (#06389)
`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
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
` 
`
`
`
`Of counsel:
`
`A. John P. Mancini
`MAYER BROWN LLP
`1675 Broadway
`New York, NY 10019-5820
`(212) 506-2500
`jmancini@mayerbrown.com
`
`Brian A. Rosenthal
`Ann Marie Duffy
`MAYER BROWN, LLP
`1999 K Street, NW
`Washington, DC 20006
`(202) 263-3000
`brosenthal@mayerbrown.com
`aduffy@mayerbrown.com
`
`Attorneys for Defendant
`
`
` 
`
`3
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 31 Filed 01/17/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID 246
`
` 
`
`
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF CONSULTATION
`
`The undersigned attorney hereby certifies
`
`that prior
`
`to
`
`the
`
`filing of
`
`this
`
`motion, multiple consultations over several days including January 16, 2013, were held with
`
`Richard Carter, attorney for plaintiff, to determine whether plaintiff would agree to the relief
`
`sought; but such consultations were not successful in reaching agreement.
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The foregoing document was filed under the Court’s CM/ECF system, automatically
`
`
`
`effecting service on counsel of record for all other parties who have appeared in this action on
`
`the date of such service.
`
`60313201.1
`
`s/Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
` 
`
`
`
`
`
` 
`
`4

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

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.

throbber

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.

Become a Member

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

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket