Case 2:12-cv-02831-JPM-tmp Document 41-1 Filed 02/11/13 Page 1 of 4 PageID 740
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.,
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`Civil Action No. 2:12-cv-02831–JPM–tmp
`
`
`
`
`
`APPLE INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`DEFENDANT’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF ITS
`MOTION TO STAY PROCEEDINGS PENDING RESOLUTION OF ITS
`MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)
`
`
`
`Defendant Apple Inc. (“Apple”) respectfully submits this memorandum in support of its
`
`motion to stay proceedings pending the Court’s ruling on Apple’s motion to transfer venue
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (“Motion to Transfer”) (Dkt. 22). At this stage in proceedings,
`
`the parties are poised to expend significant time and resources in disclosure and discovery
`
`pursuant to the Local Patent Rules – time and resources that may not be necessary in the event
`
`that this Court grants Apple’s Motion to Transfer. Furthermore, plaintiff B.E. Technology, LLC
`
`(“B.E.”) will not be prejudiced by such a stay.
`
`B.E. Technology, LLC (“B.E.”) brought nineteen separate suits in this District against a
`
`large number of defendants, the overwhelming majority of which are based in California—most
`
`in the Northern District of California--alleging separate and independent infringement of certain
`
`of its patents.1 On December 20, 2012, Apple filed a motion to transfer this case to the Northern
`
`
`1 Case Nos. 12-cv-02767, 12-cv-02769, 12-cv-02772, 12-cv-02781, 12-cv-02782, 12-cv-02783,
`12-cv-02823, 12-cv-02824, 12-cv-02825, 12-cv-02826, 12-cv-02827, 12-cv-02828, 12-cv-
`02829, 12-cv-02830, 12-cv-02832, 12-cv-02833, 12-cv-02834 and 12-cv-02866.
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02831-JPM-tmp Document 41-1 Filed 02/11/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID 741
`
`
`
`District of California. (Dkt. 22.) Most of the other defendants also filed motions to transfer to a
`
`more convenient forum, and most of those motions request transfer to the Northern District of
`
`California. On January 7, 2013, B.E. filed a memorandum in opposition to transfer (Dkt. 30),
`
`and Apple filed a reply, by leave of the Court, on January 29, 2013. (Dkt. 39.)
`
`Defendants in most of the other B.E. cases have also filed motions to stay proceedings
`
`pending determination of proper venue.2 This Court has, to date, granted the motions filed by
`
`Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”), Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC, Samsung
`
`Electronics America, Inc. (together, the “Samsung entities”) and Pandora Media, Inc
`
`(“Pandora”).3 Because the issues presented by Apple’s motion to stay are substantially identical
`
`to the arguments presented by the other defendants, and to prevent the unnecessary duplication
`
`of those arguments, Apple joins and adopts by reference the arguments set forth in the
`
`memoranda filed by Facebook, (Case No. 12-cv-02769, Dkt. 37-1), the Samsung entities, (Case
`
`No. 12-cv-02824, Dkt. 30; Case No. 12-cv-02825, Dkt. 34) and Pandora (Case No. 12-cv-02782,
`
`Dkt. 35).
`
`Courts in the Third, Fifth and Federal Circuits recognize that a motion to transfer venue
`
`should be resolved prior to other proceedings in the case, as Facebook notes in its motion. In re
`
`Fusion-IO, 489 F. App’x 465, 465 (Fed. Cir. 2012) (“We fully expect, however, … for the
`
`district court to act on [the motion to stay proceedings and motion to transfer] before proceeding
`
`to any motion on the merits of the action.”); In re Horseshoe Entm’t, 337 F.3d 429, 433 (5th Cir.
`
`2003) (stating that “in [the court’s] view disposition of [the motion to transfer] should have taken
`
`
`2 Case No. 12-cv-02769 (Dkt. 37); Case No. 12-cv-02782 (Dkt. 35); Case No. 12-cv-02824 (Dkt.
`30); Case No. 12-cv-02825 (Dkt. 34); Case No. 12-cv-02781 (Dkt. 28); Case No. 12-cv-02826
`(Dkt. 28); Case No. 12-cv-02827 (Dkt. 32); Case No. 12-cv-02828 (Dkt. 27); Case No. 12-cv-
`02829 (Dkt. 40); Case No. 12-cv-02830 (Dkt. 39); Case No. 12-cv-02866 (Dkt. 38).
`3 Case No. 12-cv-02769 (Dkt. 43); Case No. 12-cv-02782 (Dkt. 36); Case No. 12-cv-02824 (Dkt.
`33); Case No. 12-cv-02825 (Dkt. 37).
`
`
`
`
`- 2 –
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02831-JPM-tmp Document 41-1 Filed 02/11/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID 742
`
`
`
`a top priority in the handling of this case by the [district court].”); McDonnell Douglas Corp. v.
`
`Polin, 429 F.2d 30, 30-31 (3d Cir. 1970) (stating that “it is not proper to postpone consideration
`
`of the application for transfer under § 1404(a) until discovery on the merits is completed, since it
`
`is irrelevant to the determination of the preliminary question of transfer.”).
`
`Without a stay, Apple must serve its initial noninfringement contentions and produce
`
`supporting documentation under Local Patent Rules 3.3 and 3.4 by February 21, 2013. Apple’s
`
`invalidity contentions are to be served by April 1, 2013 and Apple must propose terms for claim
`
`construction by April 5, 2013. LPR 3.5, 3.6, 4.1. In the event that this case is transferred, the
`
`parties will be required to comply with a different set of patent rules imposing different timing
`
`and requirements. See Local Rules of Practice for Patent Cases before the Northern District of
`
`California. The Northern District of California rules do not require certain major activities
`
`required by the rules of this District, including non-infringement contentions.
`
`Resolution of Apple’s Motion to Transfer, and the many other pending preliminary
`
`motions, potentially will impact a significant amount of effort by the parties and the Court.
`
`Based on the similarities among the cases, decisions on the pending motions to transfer likely
`
`will require application of the same or similar standards, and it would be most appropriate to
`
`resolve these pending motions prior to further proceedings on the merits, consistent with
`
`common sense and precedent in other Federal Circuits.
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Apple respectfully requests that this Court stay all proceedings
`
`in this case, including disclosure and discovery pursuant to the Local Patent Rules, pending
`
`resolution of Apples’ Motion to Transfer.
`
`
`
`
`- 3 –
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02831-JPM-tmp Document 41-1 Filed 02/11/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID 743
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`s/Glen G. Reid, Jr.
`Glen G. Reid, Jr. (#8184)
`WYATT, TARRANT & COMBS, LLP
`1715 Aaron Brenner Dr., Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120
`Telephone: (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 Dr., Suite 800
`Memphis, TN 38120
`Telephone: (901) 537-1000
`Facsimile: (901) 537-1010
`mvorder-bruegge@wyattfirm.com
`
`Clay C. James
`Srecko “Lucky” Vidmar
`C. Matthew Rozier
`HOGAN LOVELLS US LLP
`One Tabor Center, Suite 1500
`1200 Seventeenth Street
`Denver, CO 80202
`Telephone: (303) 899-7300
`Facsimile: (303) 899-7333
`clay.james@hoganlovells.com
`lucky.vidmar@hoganlovells.com
`matt.rozier@hoganlovells.com
`
`Counsel for Defendant APPLE INC.
`
`
`
`
`60323655.1
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 –