`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
` MARSHALL DIVISION
`
`
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC,
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS CO., LTD. AND
`SAMSUNG ELECTRONICS AMERICA, INC.,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00186-JRG
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`DEFENDANTS’ REPLY IN SUPPORT OF THEIR MOTION TO STAY
`
`As set forth in Samsung’s motion to stay (Dkt. 90), the Federal Circuit fully expects a
`
`party to promptly request transfer and to seek to stay proceedings pending disposition of the
`
`transfer motion. In re Fusion-IO, Inc., 489 F. App’x 465, 466 (Fed. Cir. 2012). Further, the
`
`Federal Circuit fully expects “the district court to act on those motions before proceeding to any
`
`motion on the merits of the action.” Id. More recently, the Federal Circuit has stated that “‘once a
`
`party files a transfer motion, disposing of that motion should unquestionably take top priority.’”
`
`In re SK hynix Inc., 835 F. App’x 600, 601 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (quoting In re Apple Inc., 979 F.3d
`
`1332, 1337 (Fed. Cir. 2020)); see also id. (requiring district court to “stay all proceedings
`
`concerning the substantive issues of the case and all discovery until such time that [the district
`
`court] has issued a ruling on the motion” to transfer); In re Google Inc., No. 2015-138, 2015 WL
`
`5294800, at *1-2 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2015) (directing district court to stay all proceedings and
`
`rule on a transfer motion even though the Court had previously conducted a Markman hearing,
`
`fact discovery had closed, and the Court had conducted hearings on several discovery disputes).
`
`- 1 -
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 125 Filed 08/18/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 8401
`
`Because the Federal Circuit has clearly stated that a stay should be granted until a transfer
`
`motion can be resolved, Plaintiff’s arguments in opposition to Samsung’s motion are beside the
`
`point. See Dkt. 115 at 3-6 (arguing that Plaintiff will be prejudiced by a stay, that denial of a stay
`
`will not result in undue hardship on Samsung or duplicative litigation, and that the stage of the
`
`case weighs against granting a stay). Rather than being relevant to this motion, Plaintiff’s
`
`arguments are more properly addressed in the context of Samsung’s motion to stay pending inter
`
`partes review. See Dkt. 106 (filed August 8, 2022). In that motion, Samsung has explained that a
`
`stay pending inter partes review is warranted because (1) Plaintiff will not be prejudiced by such
`
`a stay; (2) a significant amount of work remains to be completed in this case; and (3) a stay will
`
`conserve judicial resources and simplify or eliminate issues in this case. See id. at 6-9. Plaintiff’s
`
`response to Samsung’s motion to stay pending inter partes review is due August 22, 2022, and
`
`Samsung will file its reply on August 29, 2022.
`
`In light of the Federal Circuit’s guidance and upcoming substantive case deadlines—
`
`including but not limited to the close of fact discovery on September 5, 2022 and the exchange of
`
`opening expert reports on September 12, 2022—Samsung respectfully requests that the Court
`
`immediately stay further proceedings pending a ruling by the Court on Samsung’s Motion to
`
`Transfer Venue.
`
`
`
`DATE: August 18, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/ Jin-Suk Park
`Jin-Suk Park
`jin.park@arnoldporter.com
`Ali R. Sharifahmadian
`ali.sharifahmadian@arnoldporter.com
`Paul Margulies
`paul.margulies@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`601 Massachusetts Ave., NW
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 125 Filed 08/18/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 8402
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Washington, DC 20001-3743
`Telephone: (202) 942-5000
`Facsimile: (202) 942-5555
`
`Ryan M. Nishimoto
`ryan.nishimoto@arnoldporter.com
`Daniel S. Shimell
`daniel.shimell@arnoldporter.com
`ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP
`777 South Figueroa Street, 44th Floor
`Los Angeles, CA 90017
`Telephone: (213) 243-4000
`Facsimile: (213) 243-4199
`
`-and-
`
`Melissa Smith
`melissa@gillamsmithlaw.com
`GILLAM & SMITH LLP
`303 South Washington Avenue
`Marshall, TX 75670
`Telephone: (903) 934-8450
`Facsimile: (903) 934-9257
`
`Attorneys for Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. and
`Samsung Electronics America, Inc.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 125 Filed 08/18/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 8403
`
`
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that the foregoing document was filed electronically in
`
`compliance with Local Rule CV-5(a). As such, this document was served on all counsel who have
`
`consented to electronic service, on this 18th day of August, 2022.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`/s/Melissa R. Smith
`Melissa R. Smith
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`- 4 -
`
`