`Case 6:12—cv—00799—JRG Document 37-3 Filed 05/31/13 Page 1 of 4 Page|D #: 1408
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`EXHIBIT C
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 37-3 Filed 05/31/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1409
`Case 6:12—cv—OO799—JRG Document 37-3 Filed 05/31/13 Page 2 of 4 Page|D #: 1409
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`
`
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`Plaintiff,
`
`V .
`
`SONY COMPUTER ENTERTAINMENT
`
`AMERICA, LLC,
`Defendant.
`
`E.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V.
`
`SONY MOBILE COMMUNICATIONS
`
`INC.,
`(USA),
`Defendant.
`
`3.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`V .
`
`SONY ELECTRONICS,
`Defendant.
`
`INC.,
`
`-.._,.-.._,-._—-._,-.._...-.._.-.._a-.....
`
`-._.-._r~._...-.....~.._r~._,-._»-....—«
`
`-._.a--_v=-._.--._.4~.._...~......-.....
`
`No.:
`
`2 12-cv—O2826-JPM—tmp
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`NO. 2:l2—cv—2827-JPM—tmp
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`NO. 2-12-CV-2828-JPM—tmp
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`_____________________________________________________________________
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' MOTIONS TO STAY
`
`._____________________________—_____—______—____________—______________
`
`Before the Court is Defendant Sony Computer Entertainment
`
`America, LLC's Motion To Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of
`
`its Motion To Transfer
`
`(No.
`
`2 l2—cv-2826-JPM—tmp, ECF No. 28);
`
`Defendant Sony Mobile Communications
`
`(USA), Inc.'s Motion To
`
`Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of its Motion To Transfer
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 37-3 Filed 05/31/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1410
`Case 6:12—cv—OO799—JRG Document 37-3 Filed 05/31/13 Page 3 of 4 Page|D #: 1410
`
`(No.
`
`2 12-cv—2827-JPM—tmp, ECF No. 32); and Defendant Sony
`
`Electronics, Inc.’s Motion To Stay Proceedings Pending
`
`Resolution of its Motion To Transfer (No. 2—12—cv-2828—JPM-tmp,
`
`ECF No. 2?), all filed February 7, 2013.
`
`For the reasons that
`
`follow,
`
`the Motions are GRANTED.
`
`“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., 06-1005-T/AN, 2006
`
`WL 448694 (W.D. Tenn. Feb. 19, 2006).
`
`The Court is tasked with
`
`“control[ling]
`
`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, 786 (6th Cir. 2010)
`
`{quoting Landis V. North Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936))
`
`(internal quotation marks omitted). Applying this power in a
`
`recent patent case,
`
`the United States Court of Appeals for the
`
`Federal Circuit directed the litigants to file a motion to stay
`
`proceedings and for the district court to decide the motion to
`
`stay and a pending motion to transfer venue “before proceeding
`
`to any motion on the merits of the action."
`
`In re Fusion-IO,
`
`Inc , 489 Fed. App'x 465, 465 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`The instant cases present similar sets of circumstances.
`
`Plaintiff B.E. Technology, LLC, filed patent-infringement
`
`actions against each Defendant on September 21, 2012.
`
`Defendants filed each Answer on December 31, 2012, and Motions
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 37-3 Filed 05/31/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1411
`Case 6:12—cv—OO799—JRG Document 37-3 Filed 05/31/13 Page 4 of 4 Page|D #: 1411
`
`To Change Venue on January 28, 2013,
`
`in each case, seeking
`
`transfer to the United States District Court for the District of
`
`New Jersey. Discovery will soon commence as Defendants’ Non-
`
`Infringement Contentions are due under the Local Patent Rules by
`
`February 21, 2013. Staying the proceedings — including the
`
`Local Patent Rule disclosures and fact discovery — will allow
`
`the Court
`
`to properly decide the pending Motions to Change Venue
`
`in light of judicial economy and comity.
`
`gee McDonnell Douglas
`
`Corp. V. Polin, 429 F.2d 30, 31 {3d Cir. 1970)
`
`(“Judicial
`
`economy requires that another district court should not burden
`
`itself with the merits of the action until it is decided that a
`
`transfer should be effected .
`
`.
`
`.
`
`.”).
`
`Therefore,
`
`the Court orders that all proceedings in each
`
`case — including Local Patent Rule disclosures and fact
`
`discovery — are hereby stayed pending the outcome of Defendants’
`
`Motions To Change Venue and further Orders by the Court.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED this 11th day of February, 2013.
`
`s/ Jon P. McCalla
`CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE