Case 2:12-cv-02834-JPM-tmp Document 22 Filed 01/10/13 Page 1 of 8 PageID 113
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`WESTERN DIVISION
`
`
`
`Civ. A. No. 2:12-cv-02834-JPM-tmp
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, L.L.C.
`
`Plaintiff
`
`
`
`v.
`
`MATCH.COM L.L.C.,
`
`
`
`DEFENDANT.
`
`PATENT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE NOTICE
`
`Pursuant to Local Patent Rule 2.1(a), Plaintiff B.E. Technology, L.L.C. (“B.E.”) and
`
`Defendant Match.com L.L.C. (“Match.com”) jointly submit this Patent Scheduling Conference
`
`Notice informing the Court:
`
`(1)
`
`Scheduling for a Patent Scheduling Conference
`
`B.E: B.E.’s position is this action is ripe to be scheduled for a Patent Scheduling
`
`Conference. B.E. believes that the Court should hold a consolidated conference to address
`
`consolidation of the related cases and other issues related to judicial economy and efficiency.
`
`Match.com: Match.com believes this action is not ripe for a Patent Scheduling
`
`Conference. Match.com intends to file a motion to transfer this action within the next week.
`
`Furthermore, all the defendants in the eighteen other actions filed by Plaintiff in this District
`
`have filed or expressed an intent to file similar motions seeking transfer, with a majority seeking
`
`transfer to the Northern District of California. In light of these transfer motions, Match.com
`
`respectfully submits that efficient judicial administration and the interests of all parties to the 19
`
`cases filed by B.E. would be best served by first determining the judicial district(s) in which
`
` PATENT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE NOTICE
`
`PAGE 1
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02834-JPM-tmp Document 22 Filed 01/10/13 Page 2 of 8 PageID 114
`
`these actions should be venued before proceeding with discovery or further scheduling of this
`
`action.
`
`Alternatively, should the Court not be inclined to defer all activity in the case until venue
`
`is determined, Match.com submits that an initial case management conference, comprising only
`
`counsel for the parties, be held before this case or the other 18 cases are deemed ripe for a full
`
`Patent Scheduling Conference under LPR2.1(b). Match.com submits that such an initial
`
`management conference is authorized under Fed. R. Civ. P. 16(a)(1)-(3) and subject to the
`
`Court’s discretion for purposes of case management and efficiency.
`
`While Match.com does not believe the cases should be consolidated or even conducted
`
`concurrently in all respects, there may be certain elements of the cases in which Plaintiff asserts
`
`the ’314 Patent where the actions required of the parties, or to be addressed by the Court, would
`
`be more efficient, and not vulnerable to additional confusion, if conducted concurrently. For
`
`example, holding an initial case management conference jointly among the 19 cases would
`
`provide the opportunity to discuss whether a Joint Patent Scheduling Conference would be
`
`beneficial or efficient (in light of the number of parties and the differences between the accused
`
`instrumentalities and the asserted patents) if and when such time for a Patent Scheduling
`
`Conference should arise. Second, it would provide the opportunity to discuss whether other
`
`portions of these 19 cases should be coordinated, such as a joint claim construction hearing,
`
`depositions or other discovery. As a result of unopposed motions filed by the defendants in each
`
`of the 19 cases, December 31, 2012 was fixed as a uniform date for the “Responsive Pleading”
`
`as defined in Local Patent Rule (“LPR”) 1.3 (answer or Rule 12 motion) across all of the 19
`
`cases except one. Because many of the requirements in the Local Patent Rules are based on this
`
`date, these 19 cases now share virtually identical deadlines under the Local Patent Rules. An
`
` PATENT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE NOTICE
`
`PAGE 2
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02834-JPM-tmp Document 22 Filed 01/10/13 Page 3 of 8 PageID 115
`
`initial multi-case management conference would provide an opportunity to fully discuss what
`
`similarities and differences in the cases may permit, or interfere with, the setting of parallel
`
`schedules.
`
`(2) Modifications to the Local Patent Rules
`
`B.E.: B.E.’s position is this action should be consolidated with the other B.E. actions
`
`pending before this Court for consolidated claim construction proceedings and a trial on
`
`invalidity and unenforceability of the patents-in-suit1 and that no modifications to the deadlines
`
`set by the Patent Local Rules are necessary, beyond any minor modifications necessary to
`
`synchronize the actions.
`
`Match.com: As set forth above, Match.com agrees that some level of coordination
`
`among the cases in which Plaintiff asserts the ’314 Patent would serve the interests of judicial
`
`economy. Additionally, Match.com believes the cases against Match.com and People Media,
`
`Inc. (2:12-cv-02833-JPM) should be consolidated for pre-trial related issues and trial.
`
`Match.com uses certain of the accused technology that People Media uses, and People Media is a
`
`wholly-owned subsidiary of Match.com, Inc. Match.com does not, however, believe this case
`
`should be consolidated with any of the 17 other patent infringement actions filed by B.E. in this
`
`Court, and Match.com notes that B.E.’s position regarding consolidation should be raised by
`
`motion with an opportunity for full briefing on the merits.
`
`
`1B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc., 2:12-cv-02769 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v.
`Groupon, Inc., 2:12-cv-02781 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Match.com L.L.C., 2:12-cv-
`02834 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. People Media, Inc., 2:12-cv-02833 JPM-tmp; B.E.
`Technology, L.L.C. v. LinkedIn Corporation, 2:12-cv-02772 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C.
`v. Spark Networks, Inc., 2:12-cv-02832 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Twitter, Inc., 2:12-
`cv-02783 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Google Inc., 2:12-cv-02830 JPM-tmp; B.E.
`Technology, L.L.C. v. Microsoft Corporation, 2:12-cv-02829 JPM-tmp; B.E. Technology, L.L.C.
`v. Apple Inc., 2:12-cv-02831 JPM-tmp.
`
` PATENT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE NOTICE
`
`PAGE 3
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02834-JPM-tmp Document 22 Filed 01/10/13 Page 4 of 8 PageID 116
`
`As discussed above, Match.com respectfully requests that the Court address Match.com’s
`
`transfer motion before proceeding with a Patent Scheduling Conference and that the Court
`
`suspend all other procedures, deadlines and filings called for in the Local Patent Rules until such
`
`motion is determined. If Match.com’s transfer motion is granted, the parties will be subject to a
`
`different case management order and schedule. Furthermore, Match.com submits that this
`
`approach would minimize any negative impact on judicial economy by helping avoid duplication
`
`of effort between this Court and a transferee venue.
`
`Should the Court suspend all procedures and filings called for in the Local Patent Rules
`
`pending resolution of the venue issue, Match.com requests that the deadline to serve Initial Non-
`
`Infringement Contentions pursuant to LPR 3.3 be rescheduled from 28 days after service of the
`
`Initial Infringement Contentions to 90 days after the Responsive Pleading is filed. Match.com
`
`believes that such an extension may provide the Court sufficient time to rule on the pending
`
`motion to transfer venue before the parties have to engage in substantial discovery efforts
`
`without the Court having to enter a formal stay of discovery.
`
`Match.com also believes that the provisions of LPR 3.4, requiring the production of
`
`documents relating to Match.com’s non-infringement contentions, should be contingent upon the
`
`entry of a suitable protective order governing the production of highly confidential technical
`
`information, including source code. The patent-in-suit relates to a computerized method for
`
`presenting advertisements to users. As such, Match.com expects that the documents and
`
`information contemplated by LPR 3.4 may require inspection of Match.com’s proprietary source
`
`code. Such source code comprises trade secrets and other highly confidential technical
`
`information. Accordingly, a protective order is necessary to provide requirements that are
`
`stricter than the default “attorneys-eyes-only” provisions of the LPRs.
`
` PATENT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE NOTICE
`
`PAGE 4
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02834-JPM-tmp Document 22 Filed 01/10/13 Page 5 of 8 PageID 117
`
`Match.com believes that the procedures of LPR 4.7 should be amended to provide for the
`
`close of fact discovery sixty (60) (rather than thirty (30)) days following issuance of the Court’s
`
`claim construction ruling. This case is likely to involve discovery from a number of third-party
`
`witnesses knowledgeable about prior art. Depending on the Court’s claim construction rulings,
`
`some prior art may become more relevant or additional prior art may be located. Match.com
`
`believes that a sixty (60) day window to close fact discovery following the Court’s claim
`
`construction ruling is in the interest of justice to ensure an adequate time for Match.com to seek
`
`discovery of facts relevant to invalidity of the patent-in-suit.
`
`Should LPR 4.7 be amended to provide for the close of fact discovery sixty (60) days
`
`following issuance of the Court’s claim construction ruling, Match.com believes that the
`
`procedures of LPR 5.1(b) should be amended to provide for the initial expert witness disclosures
`
`required by Rule 26 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on issues for which it bears the
`
`burden of proof 90 (rather than 60) days following the Court’s claim construction ruling. Should
`
`LPR 4.7 be amended, extending the deadline for expert disclosures from 60 to 90 days following
`
`issuance of the Court’s claim construction ruling will provide 30 days between the close of fact
`
`discovery and expert discovery. This 30 day window is currently provided for under the LPR
`
`and Match.com believes the 30 day window should remain if LPR 4.7 is amended as requested.
`
`(3)
`
`Case Management Issues
`
`B.E.: B.E.’s position is this action should be consolidated, for claim construction,
`
`discovery, and trial on issues of invalidity and unenforceability, with all of the other patent
`
`infringement actions filed by B.E. in this Court involving the same patents at issue. B.E.
`
`believes that there are no other case management issues that would impact any party’s ability to
`
`conform to the Local Patent Rules.
`
` PATENT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE NOTICE
`
`PAGE 5
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02834-JPM-tmp Document 22 Filed 01/10/13 Page 6 of 8 PageID 118
`
`Match.com: Match.com believes that some level of coordination among the cases may
`
`be appropriate, as set forth above, but objects to general consolidation. Should the Court
`
`consider consolidation, Match.com respectfully requests that the parties be allowed the
`
`opportunity to fully brief this issue and request a hearing. Match.com believes there may be
`
`other case management issues that could arise during the course of this litigation and reserves its
`
`right to address those issues at the appropriate times.
`
`Dated: January 10, 2013
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`s/Craig R. Kaufman
`Robert E. Freitas (CA Bar No. 80948)
`Craig R. Kaufman (CA Bar No. 159458)
`James Lin (CA Bar No. 241472)
`Qudus B. Olaniran (CA Bar No. 267838)
`FREITAS TSENG & KAUFMAN LLP
`100 Marine Parkway, Suite 200
`Redwood Shores, CA 94065
`Telephone: (650) 593-6300
`Facsimile: (650) 593-6301
`rfreitas@ftklaw.com
`ckaufman@ftklaw.com
`jlin@ftklaw.com
`qolaniran@ftklaw.com
`
`Richard M. Carter (TN B.P.R. #7285)
`Adam C. Simpson (TN B.P.R. #24705)
`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
`asimpson@martintate.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`B.E. Technology, L.L.C.
`
`
` PATENT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE NOTICE
`
`PAGE 6
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02834-JPM-tmp Document 22 Filed 01/10/13 Page 7 of 8 PageID 119
`
`Dated: January 10, 2013
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`s/Jonathan D. Rose (per email consent dated 1/10/13)
`Jonathan D. Rose, BPR# 20967
`BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
`1600 Division Street, Suite 700
`Nashville, Tennessee 37203
`(615) 252-2308
`jrose@babc.com
`
`OF COUNSEL (motions for admission
`pro hac vice pending):
`
`Steven G. Schortgen
`steve.schortgen@klgates.com
`Jennifer Klein Ayers
`jennifer.ayers@klgates.com
`K&L GATES LLP
`1717 Main Street, Suite 2800
`Dallas, TX 75201
`(214) 939-5500
`
`OF COUNSEL (motions for admission
`pro hac vice pending):
`
`Sanjay K. Murthy
`sanjay.murthy@klgates.com
`Christopher E. Hanba
`christopher.hanba@klgates.com
`K&L GATES LLP
`70 W. Madison Street, Suite 3100
`Chicago, Illinois 60602-4207
`(312) 372-1121
`
`Attorneys for Defendant Match.com L.L.C.
`
`
`
`
`
` PATENT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE NOTICE
`
`PAGE 7
`
`

`
`Case 2:12-cv-02834-JPM-tmp Document 22 Filed 01/10/13 Page 8 of 8 PageID 120
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`I hereby certify that on this 10th day of January, 2013, a copy of the foregoing was
`filed through the Court’s CM/ECF system.
`
`Jonathan D. Rose
`BRADLEY ARANT BOULT CUMMINGS LLP
`1600 Division Street, Suite 700
`Nashville, Tennessee 37203
`Tel: (615) 252-2308
`jrose@babc.com
`
`Steven G. Schortgen
`Jennifer Klein Ayers
`K&L GATES LLP
`1717 Main Street, Suite 2800
`Dallas, TX 75201
`Tel: (214) 939-5500
`steve.schortgen@klgates.com
`jennifer.ayers@klgates.com
`
`Sanjay K. Murthy
`Christopher E. Hanba
`K&L GATES LLP
`70 W. Madison Street, Suite 3100
`Chicago, Illinois 60602-4207
`Tel: (312) 372-1121
`sanjay.murthy@klgates.com
`christopher.hanba@klgates.com
`
`
`s/Craig R. Kaufman
`Craig R. Kaufman
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
` PATENT SCHEDULING CONFERENCE NOTICE
`
`PAGE 8