Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 115 Filed 08/11/22 Page 1 of 12 PageID #: 8318
`
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`
`
`v.
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
`MARSHALL DIVISION
`§
`
`§
`Case No. 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP
`§
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`§
`§
`
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`§
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. and
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA,
`INC.,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC’S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION
`TO DEFENDANTS SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.’S MOTION TO STAY (DKT. 90)
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 115 Filed 08/11/22 Page 2 of 12 PageID #: 8319
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page(s)
`
`INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1
`
`BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................ 1
`
`LEGAL STANDARD ......................................................................................................... 2
`
`ARGUMENT ...................................................................................................................... 3
`
`A.
`
`B.
`
`C.
`
`D.
`
`Jawbone Will Suffer Significant Prejudice if a Stay is Granted ............................. 3
`
`Samsung Will Not Suffer Any Hardship or Inequity if a Stay Is Denied ............... 4
`
`The Denial of a Stay Will Not Result in Duplicative Litigation ............................. 5
`
`Samsung Has Failed to Establish a Stay Is Warranted ........................................... 5
`
`CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................... 6
`
`
`I.
`
`II.
`
`III.
`
`IV.
`
`V.
`
`
`
`i
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 115 Filed 08/11/22 Page 3 of 12 PageID #: 8320
`
`TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
`
`
`
`Page(s)
`
`Cases
`
`Clinton v. Jones,
`520 U.S. 681 (1997) ...............................................................................................................2, 3
`
`Cummins-Allison Corp. v. SBM Co.,
`No. 9:07-cv-196, 2008 WL 11348281 (E.D. Tex. May 21, 2008) ............................................4
`
`Edward D. Ioli Trust v. Avigilon Corp.,
`No. 2:10-cv-605, Dkt. 279 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2012) ..............................................................5
`
`In re Fusion-IO,
`489 F. App’x 465 (Fed. Cir. 2012) ............................................................................................3
`
`Kaneka Corp. v. JBS Hair, Inc.,
`No. 3:10-cv-1430-P, 2011 WL 13167931 (N.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2011) ......................................4
`
`Landis v. N. Am. Co.,
`299 U.S. 248 (1936) ...................................................................................................................2
`
`Lennon Image Techs., LLC v. Macy's Retail Holdings, Inc.,
`No. 2:13-cv-235-JRG, 2014 WL 4652117 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2014) .................................5, 6
`
`Moser v. Navistar Int’l Corp.,
`No. 4:17-cv-00598, 2018 WL 1169189 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 6, 2018) ............................................3
`
`Nken v. Holder,
`556 U.S. 418 (2009) ...................................................................................................................2
`
`Realtime Data LLC v. Actian Corp.,
`No. 6:15-cv-463, 2016 WL 9340796 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2016) ..............................................3
`
`Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co.,
`No. 2:08-cv-16, 2011 WL 13134434 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2011) ..............................................2
`
`In re Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist.,
`395 F. App’x 684 (Fed. Cir. 2010) ............................................................................................2
`
`Soverain Software LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc.,
`356 F. Supp. 2d 660 (E.D. Tex. 2005) .......................................................................................2
`
`Team Worldwide Corp. v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.,
`No. 2:17-cv-000234-JRG, 2018 WL 2722051 (E.D. Tex. June 6, 2018) ..................................2
`
`ii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 115 Filed 08/11/22 Page 4 of 12 PageID #: 8321
`
`Uniloc 2017 LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc.,
`No. 2:19-cv-00259-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 1433960 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2020) .........................4
`
`Statutes
`
`28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) .....................................................................................................................1, 6
`
`Other Authorities
`
`Fed. R. Civ. P. 26 .............................................................................................................................4
`
`
`
`iii
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 115 Filed 08/11/22 Page 5 of 12 PageID #: 8322
`
`
`
`Plaintiff Jawbone Innovations, LLC (“Plaintiff” or “Jawbone”), by and through its
`
`undersigned counsel, respectfully submits this Response in Opposition to Defendants Samsung
`
`Electronics Co., Ltd. and Samsung Electronics America, Inc.’s (collectively, “Defendants” or
`
`“Samsung”) Motion to Stay Pending Resolution of its Motion to Transfer Venue to The Northern
`
`District of California Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Dkt. 59). Samsung’s Motion to Stay (Dkt.
`
`90, “Motion”) should be denied for the reasons set forth below.
`
`I.
`
`INTRODUCTION
`
`Samsung asks this Court to stay this case pending a ruling on its Motion to Transfer Venue
`
`filed nearly thirteen months after this case was filed. A stay would unnecessarily delay this
`
`litigation, particularly at this late stage of the case. The parties have completed claim construction
`
`briefing, the Court has held the Markman hearing, and fact discovery will close shortly after
`
`briefing on this Motion is complete.
`
`Samsung does not attempt to show that the relevant factors favor staying this litigation;
`
`indeed, Samsung cannot satisfy its burden. Accordingly, Jawbone respectfully requests that this
`
`Court deny Samsung’s Motion to stay.
`
`II.
`
`BACKGROUND
`
`On May 27, 2021, Jawbone filed a complaint against Defendants. Dkt. 1. An amended
`
`complaint was filed on October 26, 2021. Dkt. 21. Nearly thirteen months after the case began,
`
`on June 15, 2022, Samsung filed a motion to transfer venue to the Northern District of California
`
`pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a). Dkt. 59.
`
`This case has progressed deeply into discovery and claim construction. The parties
`
`exchanged initial disclosures on February 10, 2022 (Dkts. 40, 42), exchanged proposed claim
`
`terms and preliminary claim constructions (Dkt. 58), filed a joint claim construction statement
`
`(Dkt. 47) and completed claim construction briefing (Dkts. 67, 71, 76). The claim construction
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 115 Filed 08/11/22 Page 6 of 12 PageID #: 8323
`
`hearing was held on August 2, 2022 (Dkt. 58). Samsung filed this Motion on July 28, 2022, only
`
`five days before the Court’s claim construction hearing. (Dkt. 58). Fact discovery will close on
`
`September 5, 2022 and opening expert reports will be exchanged on September 12.
`
`III. LEGAL STANDARD
`
`A district court has the inherent power to control its own docket, including the power to
`
`stay proceedings. Soverain Software LLC v. Amazon.com, Inc., 356 F. Supp. 2d 660, 662 (E.D.
`
`Tex. 2005) (citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936)); see Team Worldwide Corp. v.
`
`Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-000234-JRG, 2018 WL 2722051, at *2 (E.D. Tex. June 6,
`
`2018) (citing Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706 (1997)). “The Supreme Court has recognized
`
`that stays are ‘an intrusion into the ordinary processes of administration and judicial review.’”
`
`Team Worldwide, 2018 WL 2722051, at *2 (citing Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 427 (2009)).
`
`“This is particularly true when a stay is sought in the midst of an ongoing case being prepared for
`
`trial.” Id.
`
`In assessing whether a stay is appropriate, the Court “must first identify a pressing need for
`
`the stay, and then balance those interests against interests frustrated by the action.” In re
`
`Sacramento Mun. Util. Dist., 395 F. App’x 684, 687-88 (Fed. Cir. 2010). A court must stay
`
`discovery pending a motion to dismiss or transfer only upon a showing of “good cause” to excuse
`
`the movant from compliance with the mandatory discovery obligations set forth in Local Rule CV-
`
`26(a). See Retractable Techs., Inc. v. Becton Dickinson & Co., No. 2:08-cv-16, 2011
`
`WL 13134434, at *2 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 15, 2011).
`
`Management of the court’s docket requires “the exercise of judgment, which must weigh
`
`competing interests and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299 U.S. at 254-55. In determining
`
`whether to stay, courts will consider a number of factors, including (1) the potential prejudice to
`
`the nonmoving party from a stay; (2) the hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 115 Filed 08/11/22 Page 7 of 12 PageID #: 8324
`
`not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation.
`
`See Moser v. Navistar Int’l Corp., No. 4:17-cv-00598, 2018 WL 1169189, at *2-3 (E.D. Tex. Mar.
`
`6, 2018). The movant bears the burden of establishing why a stay should be granted. Clinton v.
`
`Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 708 (1997).
`
`IV. ARGUMENT
`
`Samsung’s Motion spans a mere half page and makes no substantive argument except to
`
`acknowledge that the “Federal Circuit has stated that it fully expects the movant to promptly
`
`request transfer and seek to stay proceedings pending disposition of the transfer motion,” Motion
`
`at 1 (citing In re Fusion-IO, 489 F. App’x 465 (Fed. Cir. 2012)). Samsung cannot meet this
`
`standard because it waited nearly thirteen months to file its motion to transfer. Samsung provides
`
`no explanation for this delay, nor does it attempt to show how a thirteen-month delay meets the
`
`Federal Circuit’s standard for a prompt request for transfer. Samsung also fails to address the
`
`appropriate good-cause standard for issuance of a stay. Samsung’s Motion should be denied.
`
`A.
`
`Jawbone Will Suffer Significant Prejudice if a Stay is Granted
`
`Jawbone will suffer significant prejudice if a stay is granted. Jawbone is entitled to timely
`
`enforcement of its patent rights, which includes proceeding with discovery as set forth in this
`
`Court’s Docket Control Order and the Local Rules. See Realtime Data LLC v. Actian Corp., No.
`
`6:15-cv-463, 2016 WL 9340796, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 29, 2016). Jawbone will be prejudiced or
`
`tactically disadvantaged by a stay which would disrupt the Court’s scheduled speedy and efficient
`
`discovery. A stay would either compress Jawbone’s ability to conduct timely discovery,
`
`particularly where parties have already exchanged discovery responses, documents, and have
`
`already begun fact depositions, or risk the loss of the February 2023 trial date.
`
`Additionally, a stay will unnecessarily delay discovery and the resolution of this case,
`
`permitting Samsung’s infringement to continue unabated, while simultaneously delaying
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 115 Filed 08/11/22 Page 8 of 12 PageID #: 8325
`
`Jawbone’s day in court to address Samsung’s infringement. See Cummins-Allison Corp. v. SBM
`
`Co., No. 9:07-cv-196, 2008 WL 11348281, at *2 (E.D. Tex. May 21, 2008). As this Court has
`
`stated, under Local Rule CV-26 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 26, “the presumption is that
`
`discovery shall proceed notwithstanding the filing of a motion [to transfer].” See, e.g., Uniloc
`
`2017 LLC v. Samsung Elecs. Am., Inc., No. 2:19-cv-00259-JRG-RSP, 2020 WL 1433960, at *8
`
`(E.D. Tex. Mar. 24, 2020) (denying motion to stay pending motion to dismiss). This factor weighs
`
`against a stay.
`
`B.
`
`Samsung Will Not Suffer Any Hardship or Inequity if a Stay Is
`Denied
`
`Samsung has not shown any cognizable prejudice, hardship, or inequity arising from a
`
`denial of its motion to stay. Samsung must show “some level of undue burden that results from
`
`the nature of the case. Ordinary discovery deadlines, without more, does not [sic] give rise to an
`
`undue burden.” Kaneka Corp. v. JBS Hair, Inc., No. 3:10-cv-1430-P, 2011 WL 13167931, at *1
`
`(N.D. Tex. Mar. 30, 2011). The typical costs associated with discovery and defending a suit do
`
`not constitute harm or prejudice to Samsung.
`
`Samsung cannot show that denial of a stay would result in hardship because it litigated this
`
`case for thirteen months before requesting transfer, demonstrating its willingness to litigate in this
`
`District. The parties have completed all claim construction proceedings and are in the final weeks
`
`of discovery. If Samsung were prejudiced by conducting these proceedings before this Court, it
`
`would have sought transfer and a stay at the outset of the case. It did not. Allowing Samsung to
`
`wait to file its motion to transfer until the case has progressed, and then stay the case based on its
`
`belated Motion would reward Samsung’s dilatory conduct and encourage such gamesmanship.
`
`Moreover, the Northern District of California’s local patent rules are “nearly identical” to
`
`this District’s local patent rules, making it unlikely that the discovery conducted in this District
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 115 Filed 08/11/22 Page 9 of 12 PageID #: 8326
`
`would go to waste if the case were ultimately transferred. See Edward D. Ioli Trust v. Avigilon
`
`Corp., No. 2:10-cv-605, Dkt. 279 at 3-4 (E.D. Tex. Nov. 16, 2012) (Gilstrap, J.).
`
`Further, Samsung’s claim that it requests its stay “[i]n light of the upcoming Markman
`
`hearing,” Mot. at 1, is disingenuous given its delay in seeking transfer and a stay and its knowledge
`
`that this Motion would not be fully briefed prior to the Markman hearing. Samsung did not even
`
`seek expedited briefing on this Motion. Samsung’s conduct shows that it would not suffer hardship
`
`by litigating in this Court pending resolution of its belated transfer motion. This factor weighs
`
`against granting a stay.
`
`C. The Denial of a Stay Will Not Result in Duplicative Litigation
`
`The denial of a stay would not result in duplicative litigation. As set forth in the Court’s
`
`Docket Control Order, the case will proceed through dates for fact discovery, claim construction,
`
`expert discovery and reports, and dispositive motions, regardless of whether the case may be
`
`transferred. Even assuming, arguendo, that this case is ultimately transferred, it will need to
`
`proceed through the same deadlines whether they occur in the Eastern District of Texas or the
`
`Northern District of California. Accordingly, this factor weighs against a stay.
`
`D.
`
`Samsung Has Failed to Establish a Stay Is Warranted
`
`Jawbone has expended significant resources conducting claim construction proceedings
`
`and engaging in substantial discovery, including traveling overseas to depose Samsung’s
`
`witnesses. The deadlines for fact discovery, expert discovery, and dispositive motions are fast
`
`approaching. (Dkt. 58.) As such, the stage of this case weighs against granting a stay. See, e.g.,
`
`Lennon Image Techs., LLC v. Macy’s Retail Holdings, Inc., No. 2:13-cv-235-JRG, 2014
`
`WL 4652117, at *3 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 18, 2014) (“[T]he Court is persuaded that the well-developed
`
`posture of this case weighs heavily against granting a stay. The case has been actively proceeding
`
`in this Court for well over a year. . . . Finally, trial is set for March 2, 2015, less than six months
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 115 Filed 08/11/22 Page 10 of 12 PageID #: 8327
`
`away.”).
`
`Accordingly, these factors weigh against granting a stay. See id. (“After considering the
`
`above factors, the Court finds a stay at this point in the proceedings is inappropriate.”).
`
`V.
`
`CONCLUSION
`
`For all the foregoing reasons, Jawbone respectfully requests that Samsung’s Motion to Stay
`
`Pending Resolution of its Motion to Transfer Venue to the Northern District of California Pursuant
`
`to 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) (Dkt. 90) should be denied in its entirety.
`
`Dated: August 11, 2022
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
` /s/ Peter Lambrianakos
`Alfred R. Fabricant
`NY Bar No. 2219392
`Email: ffabricant@fabricantllp.com
`Peter Lambrianakos
`NY Bar No. 2894392
`Email: plambrianakos@fabricantllp.com
`Vincent J. Rubino, III
`NY Bar No. 4557435
`Email: vrubino@fabricantllp.com
`Richard M. Cowell
`NY Bar No. 4617759
`Email: rcowell@fabricantllp.com
`FABRICANT LLP
`411 Theodore Fremd Avenue,
`Suite 206 South
`Rye, New York 10580
`Telephone: (212) 257-5797
`Facsimile: (212) 257-5796
`
`Samuel F. Baxter
`Texas State Bar No. 01938000
`Email: sbaxter@mckoolsmith.com
`Jennifer L. Truelove
`Texas State Bar No. 24012906
`Email: jtruelove@mckoolsmith.com
`MCKOOL SMITH, P.C.
`104 E. Houston Street, Suite 300
`Marshall, Texas 75670
`Telephone: (903) 923-9000
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 115 Filed 08/11/22 Page 11 of 12 PageID #: 8328
`
`Facsimile: (903) 923-9099
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 115 Filed 08/11/22 Page 12 of 12 PageID #: 8329
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on August 11, 2022, all counsel of record who are
`
`deemed to have consented to electronic service are being served with a copy of this document via
`
`the Court’s CM/ECF system per Local Rule CV-5(a)(3).
`
`
`
`/s/ Peter Lambrianakos
` Peter Lambrianakos
`
`
`
`