Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 64 Filed 12/06/13 Page 1 of 14 PageID 544
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`AMAZON DIGITAL SERVICES,
`INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02772-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`LINKEDIN CORP.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 64 Filed 12/06/13 Page 2 of 14 PageID 545
`
`
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02781-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02782-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02823-JPM-tmp
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`GROUPON, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`PANDORA MEDIA, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`TWITTER, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`BARNES & NOBLE, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 64 Filed 12/06/13 Page 3 of 14 PageID 546
`
`
`
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02826-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`3
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG TELECOMMUNICATIONS
`AMERICA, LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT
`AMERICA LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 64 Filed 12/06/13 Page 4 of 14 PageID 547
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
`(USA) INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`SONY ELECTRONICS INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02827-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02828-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02829-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02830-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`4
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MICROSOFT CORP.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`GOOGLE INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 64 Filed 12/06/13 Page 5 of 14 PageID 548
`
`
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02831-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02834-JPM-tmp
`
`
`
`No. 2:12-cv-02866-JPM-tmp
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`APPLE INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`PEOPLE MEDIA, INC.,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MATCH.COM, LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MOTOROLA MOBILITY HOLDINGS,
`LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 64 Filed 12/06/13 Page 6 of 14 PageID 549
`
`
` ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO STAY
`
`
`
`Before the Court are (1) the Motion to Stay Litigation
`Pending Inter Partes Review (“IPR”) filed on November 22, 2013
`by Defendant Samsung Electronics America, Inc. (“SEA”) and
`Defendant Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC (“STA”1;
`collectively, with SEA, “Samsung”) (ECF No. 66),2 (2) the Motion
`to Stay Proceedings Pending IPR filed on November 26, 2013 by
`Defendant Groupon, Inc. (“Groupon”) (No. 12-cv-02781, ECF No.
`55), and (3) the Motion to Stay Litigation Pending IPR filed on
`November 27, 2013 by Defendant Facebook, Inc. (“Facebook”) (No.
`12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp, ECF No. 71.)
`For the following reasons, the Motions are GRANTED.
`I. BACKGROUND
`These related cases3 concern alleged infringement of
`Plaintiff B.E. Technology, LLC’s (“B.E.”) patents, United States
`
`
`1 B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC,
`No. 2:12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp.
`2 Unless otherwise noted, all ECF citations refer to B.E. Technology, L.L.C.
`v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 12-cv-02825-JPM-tmp.
`3 The related cases are as follows: B.E. Technology, LLC v. Amazon Digital
`Services, Inc., No. 12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Facebook,
`Inc., 12-cv-2769-JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, Inc. v. LinkedIn Corp., No. 2:12-
`cv-02772-JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Groupon, Inc., 12-cv-2781-JPM-cgc;
`B.E. Technology, LLC v. Pandora Media, Inc., 12-cv-2782-JPM-cgc; B.E.
`Technology, LLC v. Twitter, Inc., No. 2:12-cv-02783-JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology,
`LLC v. Barnes & Noble, Inc., 12-cv-2823-JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, Inc. v.
`Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC., No. 12-cv-02824-JPM-tmp; B.E.
`Technology, L.L.C. v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., No. 12-cv-02825-JPM-
`tmp; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Sony Computer Entertainment America, LLC, 12-cv-
`2826-JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Sony Mobile Communications (USA), Inc.,
`12-cv-2827-JPMtmp; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Sony Electronics, Inc., 12-cv-
`2828-JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Microsoft Corp., 12-cv-2829-JPM-tmp;
`6
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 64 Filed 12/06/13 Page 7 of 14 PageID 550
`
`Patent No. 6,771,290 (the “‘290 patent”), and United States
`Patent No. 6,628,314 (the “‘314 patent”). (See Def’s Mem. at 3,
`ECF No. 66-1.)
`
`On October 9, 2013, Samsung filed an IPR petition with the
`Patent and Trademark Office (“PTO”) seeking review of claims 2
`and 3 of the ‘290 patent. (Def’s Mem. at 3, ECF No. 66-1.)
`“Four other IPR petitions challenging the same claims of the
`‘290 patent were filed at around the same time: Google filed two
`petitions on October 7, Sony filed a petition on October 8, and
`Microsoft filed a petition on October 9.” (ECF No. 66-1,
`Exs. 2-5.) Samsung also understands that four IPRs have been
`filed against the ‘314 patent. (Def’s Mem. at 4, ECF No. 66-1.)
`Many of the other 16 remaining defendants filed petitions for
`IPR for both the ‘290 and ‘314 patents. (Def’s Mem. at 4, ECF
`No. 66-1.) Plaintiff does not oppose the motion to stay so long
`as all litigation involving ‘290 and ‘314 is also stayed.
`(Def’s Certificate of Consultation at 4, ECF No. 66.)
`II. STANDARD
`“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., No. 06–1005–T/AN,
`
`
`B.E. Technology, LLC v. Google Inc., 12-cv-2830-JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, LLC
`v. Apple Inc., 12-cv-2831-JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, LLC v. People Media,
`Inc., 12-cv-2833-JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, LLC v. Match.com, LLC, 12-cv-2834-
`JPM-tmp; and B.E. Technology, LLC v. Motorola Mobility Holdings, LLC, 12-cv-
`2866.
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 64 Filed 12/06/13 Page 8 of 14 PageID 551
`
`2006 WL 448694 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 19, 2006) (citation omitted).
`“[T]he power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power
`inherent in every court to control 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, 785
`(6th Cir. 2010) (alteration in original) (quoting Landis v.
`North American Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)) (internal
`quotation marks omitted).
`“To determine whether a stay pending [IPR] is appropriate,
`courts apply the same factors as determining whether to stay a
`case pending reexamination.” Regents of Univ. of Michigan v.
`St. Jude Med., Inc., No. 12-12908, 2013 WL 2393340, at *2 (E.D.
`Mich. May 31, 2013) (citation omitted). In determining whether
`to stay litigation pending patent reexamination by the PTO,
`courts generally consider the following three factors: “(1)
`whether a stay would unduly prejudice or present a clear
`tactical disadvantage to the non-moving party; (2) whether a
`stay will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case;
`and (3) whether discovery is complete and whether a trial date
`has been set.” Procter & Gamble Co. v. Team Techs., Inc., No.
`1:12-cv-552, 2013 WL 4830950, at *2 (S.D. Ohio Sept. 10, 2013)
`(quoting Tdata Inc. v. Aircraft Technical Publishers,
`Nos. 2:03–cv–264, 2:04–cv–1072 (S.D. Ohio Jan. 4, 2008)).
`“Courts have inherent power to manage their dockets and stay
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 64 Filed 12/06/13 Page 9 of 14 PageID 552
`
`proceedings, including the authority to order a stay pending
`conclusion of a PTO reexamination.” Ethicon Inc. v. Quigg, 849
`F.2d 1422, 1426–27 (Fed. Cir. 1988) (citation omitted).
`III. ANALYSIS
`
`Samsung argues that all three factors favor staying this
`case pending the outcome of the IPR. Groupon and Facebook make
`similar arguments. The Court agrees with Samsung, Groupon, and
`Facebook. These three factors are addressed in turn.
`A. Undue Prejudice or Clear Tactical Disadvantage
`
`
`Samsung argues that a stay will not prejudice any parties
`in this case. First, “Samsung also understands that most, if
`not all, of the 16 other defendants will either move to stay
`their respective cases, or will not actively oppose entry of a
`stay in their cases—again so long as all the other cases
`involving the ‘290 and ‘314 patents are also stayed.” (Def’s
`Mem. at 1, ECF No. 66-1.) Samsung and B.E. agree that this case
`should be stayed pending the resolution of the IPR petitions -
`so long as all other pending litigation regarding the ‘290 and
`‘314 patent are also stayed. (Def’s Mem. at 1-2, ECF No. 66-1.)
`According to Samsung, B.E. would not be prejudiced since a stay
`will not unduly delay litigation. (Id. at 10).
`Samsung contends that since “B.E. does not compete with
`Samsung or any of the other [D]efendants” and “exists solely to
`enforce its patent rights,” monetary damages will be B.E.’s only
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 64 Filed 12/06/13 Page 10 of 14 PageID 553
`
`remedy and this remedy will not be impacted by a stay. (Id. at
`10 (citing Software Rights Archive, 2013 WL 5225522, at *6); see
`also Visual Interactive Phone Concepts, Inc. v. Samsung
`Telecommunications America, LLC., No. 11–12945, 2012 WL 1049197,
`at *3 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 28. 2012).)
`Samsung claims that “most, if not all, of the 16 other
`defendants will either move to stay their respective cases, or
`will not actively oppose an entry of a stay in their cases,” so
`long as all the cases are also stayed. (Def’s Mem. at 1, ECF
`No. 66-1.)
`Second, Samsung contends that the Court can sua sponte stay
`the other actions, without the other Defendants making formal
`motions. (Def’s Mem. at 2, ECF No. 66-1, citing Cascades
`Computer Innovation, LLC v. SK Hynix Inc., No. 11 C 4356, 2012
`WL 2086469, at *2 (N.D. Ill. May 25, 2012).) Samsung suggests
`doing so would promote judicial efficiency and reduce
`unnecessary duplication of work. (Id.)
`Similarly, Groupon and Facebook argue that since B.E. is a
`non-practicing entity seeking to protect its patent rights and
`that B.E. does not oppose staying all litigation, B.E. will not
`be unfairly prejudiced. (No. 12-cv-02871-JPM-tmp, ECF No. 55-1
`at 7); (No. 12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp, ECF No. 71-1 at 1.)
`Samsung correctly distinguishes this Court’s decision in
`One Stockduq Holdings, LLC v. Becton, Dickinson & Co., No. 2:12-
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 64 Filed 12/06/13 Page 11 of 14 PageID 554
`
`cv-3037-JPM-tmp, ECF No. 53, at 3-4 (W.D. Tenn. May 6, 2013)
`from the present case. Though both cases involved a petition
`for IPR that had not yet been granted, in the present case, B.E.
`is in favor of the present motion to stay, so long as all of the
`other pending cases regarding patents ‘290 and ‘314 before this
`court are stayed. B.E.’s assent indicates that B.E. will not
`suffer prejudice as a result of staying the present cases.
`Accordingly, the Court finds that this factor weighs in
`favor of granting a stay.
`B. Simplification of Issues
`Samsung argues that statistically speaking, “it is a near
`
`certainty that an IPR will be instituted on at least one of
`those five petitions” and that the PTO will cancel at least some
`of the challenged claims. (Def’s Mem. at 7, ECF No. 66-1.)
`
`The Court notes that Samsung’s recitation of the statistics
`on the granting of IPR petitions is not persuasive. Samsung
`conflates the statistics for the overall rate of granting IPR
`petitions with the likelihood of the instant five petitions
`being granted. The PTO does not grant IPR petitions at random,
`but based on the merit of each petition. See 35 U.S.C. § 314(a)
`(The relevant standard for granting a petition for IPR is if
`“there is a reasonable likelihood that the petitioner would
`prevail with respect to at least 1 of the claims challenged in
`the petition.”)
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 64 Filed 12/06/13 Page 12 of 14 PageID 555
`
`Statistics aside, assuming that the PTO will grant at least
`
`some of the petitions for IPR and institute IPR proceedings,
`Samsung argues that the staying the litigation will simplify any
`litigation pending in this Court, regardless of the outcome of
`the review. “Even if all claims are confirmed by the PTO, the
`record of the [IPR] will assist this Court in reducing the
`length and complexity of this litigation and will limit what
`issues are left to be resolved by this Court.” (Def’s Mem. at
`7, ECF No. 66-1 (quoting One Stockduq Holdings, LLC v. Becton,
`Dickinson & Co., No. 2:12-cv-3037-JPM-tmp, ECF No. 85 (W.D.
`Tenn. Nov. 12, 2013)).)
`
`Groupon and Facebook also argue that a stay will simplify
`issues for trial. (No. 12-cv-02871-JPM-tmp, ECF No. 55-1 at 8);
`(No. 12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp, ECF No. 71-1 at 7.)
`This Court agrees that granting the stay to allow the
`petition for IPR to be considered will simplify the dispute at
`hand and promote judicial efficiency. Accordingly, the Court
`finds that this factor weighs in favor of granting a stay.
`C. Stage of Litigation
`Samsung argues that the related cases are early in the
`
`stages of litigation, and therefore this factor weighs in favor
`of granting the stay. (Def’s Mem. at 4, ECF No. 66-1.) The
`cases involving the ‘290 patent are early in discovery. Samsung
`provides a brief overview of the current stage of litigation:
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 64 Filed 12/06/13 Page 13 of 14 PageID 556
`
`No LPR 2.1(d) Patent Scheduling Conference has taken
`place, and no trial date has been set. The limited
`discovery that has occurred includes primarily the
`exchanges mandated by the Local Patent Rules.
`Preliminary infringement, non-infringement,
`invalidity, and validity contentions have been
`exchanged, and the parties exchanged their preliminary
`and final identification of terms for construction on
`September 23 and November 5, 2013, respectively. Only
`one deposition has taken place in this case, and that
`deposition was of a third-party regarding prior art.
`(Id. (citation omitted).) Samsung also contends that absent a
`stay, more discovery will be needed. (Id.) Samsung argues that
`if “there is more work ahead of the parties and the Court than
`behind the parties and the Court,” this factor weighs in favor
`of granting the motion to stay. (Def’s Mem. at 9, ECF No. 66-1
`(quoting Semiconductor Energy Lab. Co. v. Chimei Innolux Corp.,
`No. SACV 12–21–JST (JPRx), 2012 WL 7170593, at *2 (C.D. Cal.
`Dec. 19, 2012).)
`
`Groupon and Facebook similarly note that the litigation is
`in its early stages and will not be harmed by a stay. (No. 12-
`cv-02871-JPM-tmp, ECF No. 55-1 at 9); (No. 12-cv-02769-JPM-tmp,
`ECF No. 71-1 at 8.)
`The Court agrees with Samsung, Groupon, and Facebook that
`the litigation is in its early stages, and thus a stay would not
`be overly disruptive of the related cases. Accordingly, the
`Court finds that this factor weighs in favor of granting a stay.
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02833-JPM-tmp Document 64 Filed 12/06/13 Page 14 of 14 PageID 557
`
`IV. CONCLUSION
`
`For the foregoing reasons, Samsung’s Motion to Stay (ECF
`No. 66-1), Groupon’s Motion to Stay (No. 12-cv-02871-JPM-tmp,
`ECF No. 55), and Facebook’s Motion to Stay (No. 12-cv-02769-JPM-
`tmp, ECF No. 71) are GRANTED. All proceedings for the related
`cases are hereby STAYED pending a determination from the PTO.
`The parties are also ORDERED to file the PTO’s determination of
`whether to institute IPR within three (3) days of the PTO’s
`decision, and the parties are further ORDERED to submit a
`proposed amended scheduling order within ten (10) days of the
`PTO’s determination.
`The parties may move to lift the stay for good cause prior
`to a determination of the IPR petition by the PTO.
`IT IS SO ORDERED this 6th day of December, 2013.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jon P. McCalla________
`JON P. McCALLA
`U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE
`
`
`
`14