`
`
`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 SUR-REPLY 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 148 Filed 08/25/22 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 9430
`
`
`
`Samsung is not entitled to a stay pending a decision on its motion to transfer because
`
`Samsung unreasonably delayed in filing that motion. Samsung’s motion to transfer was filed June
`
`15, 2022, thirteen months after this case was filed, and briefing was completed July 27, 2022, less
`
`than one month ago. See Dkts. 59, 89. Samsung offers no explanation for its delay in filing its
`
`motion to transfer, but nonetheless relies on case law making prompt filing of a transfer motion a
`
`condition for obtaining a stay. See In re Fusion-IO, Inc., 489 F. App’x 465, 466 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`Samsung’s reply concedes that In re Fusion-IO does not support its motion by failing to address
`
`this flaw in its motion on reply.
`
`Samsung’s reliance on reply on In re SK hynix Inc. and In re Google Inc. is unpersuasive
`
`for the same reason—the defendants had filed motions to transfer at the outset of the case. See In
`
`re SK hynix Inc., 835 F. App’x 600 (Fed. Cir. 2021) (granting petition for mandamus where
`
`defendant moved to transfer two months after filing of the complaint and moved to stay
`
`proceedings nearly seven months after briefing was complete); see also In re Google Inc., No.
`
`2015-138, 2015 WL 5294800, at *1 (Fed. Cir. July 16, 2015) (where defendant filed its motion to
`
`transfer three months after filing of the complaint and remained pending eight months after
`
`briefing was complete). Samsung has presented no authority that a defendant which waits thirteen
`
`months to file a motion to transfer is entitled to a stay.
`
`Rather than address the Fifth Circuit’s stay factors analyzed in Jawbone’s response in
`
`opposition, Samsung dismisses the factors as irrelevant in light of Federal Circuit mandamus
`
`decisions. Reply at 2. Jawbone submits that the stay factors control both of Samsung’s stay
`
`motions and show that a stay of the proceedings is not warranted. See Dkt. 115. Accordingly,
`
`Jawbone respectfully requests that the Court deny Samsung’s Motion.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 148 Filed 08/25/22 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 9431
`
`I.
`
`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) be denied in its entirety.
`
`Dated: August 25, 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
`Facsimile: (903) 923-9099
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFF
`JAWBONE INNOVATIONS, LLC
`
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00186-JRG-RSP Document 148 Filed 08/25/22 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 9432
`
`CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
`
`The undersigned hereby certifies that on August 25, 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
`
`
`
`