`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02767 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02769 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02772 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02781 – JPM-tmp
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`1
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`LINKEDIN CORP.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`GROUPON, INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 73 Filed 06/23/15 Page 2 of 7 PageID 830
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02782 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02783 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02823 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02824 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`PANDORA MEDIA, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`BARNES & NOBLE, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA, LLC,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 73 Filed 06/23/15 Page 3 of 7 PageID 831
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02825 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02826 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02827 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02828 – JPM-tmp
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`3
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT
`AMERICA LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SONY MOBILE
`COMMUNICATIONS (USA) INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SONY ELECTRONICS INC.,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 73 Filed 06/23/15 Page 4 of 7 PageID 832
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02829 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02830 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02831 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02833 – JPM-tmp
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`4
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORP.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 73 Filed 06/23/15 Page 5 of 7 PageID 833
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02834 – JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`Civil Action No. 12-cv-02866 – JPM-tmp
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
` )
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MATCH.COM, LLC,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY
`HOLDINGS LLC,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPPLEMENTAL JOINT INTERIM STATUS
`NOTICE REGARDING INTER PARTES REVIEWS
`
`
`
`On April 15, 2015, the parties to this action (and the seventeen related actions by
`
`plaintiff) filed a Joint Interim Status Notice to provide the Court with updated information on the
`
`inter partes reviews initiated during 2014, consistent with the Order Granting Motions to Stay
`
`entered on December 6, 2013.1 In that April notice, the parties reported that the Patent Trial and
`
`
`1 / The Order Granting Motions to Stay bears differing ECF Numbers among the eighteen
`related cases. It is ECF No. 71 in the first listed case, B.E. Technology, LLC v. Amazon Digital
`Services, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp. The inter partes review proceedings are identified
`by IPR Number, Patent, Claims, and Filer in notices previously filed with the Court, one
`counterpart of which is ECF No. 75 in the Amazon case. A counterpart of the April 15, 2015
`joint notice is ECF No. 78 in the Amazon case.
`
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 73 Filed 06/23/15 Page 6 of 7 PageID 834
`
`Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office had entered written
`
`decisions in those proceedings, finding that every claim of U.S. Patent Numbers 6,771,290 and
`
`6,628,314 asserted against any of the eighteen defendants in these actions is unpatentable. The
`
`parties committed to keep the Court informed of material developments in the PTAB
`
`proceedings, and suggested in substance that the existing stay Orders remain in effect pending
`
`plaintiff’s determination of whether to appeal one or more of the PTAB decisions.
`
`
`
`Since that joint notice, plaintiff has in fact commenced appeals of the PTAB decisions in
`
`all eleven of the inter parties review proceedings. In view of this development, and to continue
`
`achievement of the purposes of the stay Orders, the parties request that the stays in this and the
`
`corresponding actions remain in effect until the conclusion of such appeals. The parties continue
`
`their commitment to apprise the Court promptly of developments that logically would warrant
`
`consideration of dissolving or modifying the stays or a resumed case schedule.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`
`/s/Robert E. Freitas (PER CONSENT MVB)
`Robert E. Freitas (CA Bar No. 80948)
`FREITAS ANGELL & WEINBERG LLP
`350 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 593-6300
`Facsimile: (650) 593-6301
`rfreitas@fawlaw.com
`
`Richard M. Carter (TN B.P.R. #7285)
`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
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff B.E. Technology, L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`Case 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp Document 73 Filed 06/23/15 Page 7 of 7 PageID 835
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted:
`
`/s/ Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr. (No. 6389)
`Wyatt, Tarrant & Combs, LLP
`1715 Aaron Brenner Dr., Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120
`Phone: 901-537-1000
`Fax: 901-537-1010
`mvorderbruegge@wyattfirm.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The foregoing notice having been filed via the Court’s CM/ECF system, a copy is being
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`automatically served upon all counsel of record for both parties in each of the above-captioned
`
`actions.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`Mark Vorder-Bruegge, Jr.
`
`7