`Case 6:12—cv—00799—JRG Document 37-4 Filed 05/31/13 Page 1 of 4 Page|D #: 1412
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`EXHIBIT D
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 37-4 Filed 05/31/13 Page 2 of 4 PageID #: 1413
`Case 6:12—cv—OO799—JRG Document 37-4 Filed 05/31/13 Page 2 of 4 Page|D #: 1413
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE
`
`
`
`No.:
`
`2 12-ov—O2769-JPM—tmp
`
`) ) J }
`
`)
`)
`
`) J 3
`
`B.E. TECHNOLOGY, LLC,
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`FACEBOOK,
`
`INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`.
`
`ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO STAY
`
`
`
`Before
`
`the
`
`Court
`
`is
`
`Defendant
`
`Facebook,
`
`Inc.'s
`
`(“Defendant”) Motion To Stay Proceedings Pending Resolution of
`
`its Motion To Transfer
`
`{ECF No. 37),
`
`filed January 31,
`
`2013.
`
`For the reasons that follow,
`
`the Motion is 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—lDO5—T/AN, 2006
`
`WL 448694 (W.3. 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
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 37-4 Filed 05/31/13 Page 3 of 4 PageID #: 1414
`Case 6:12—cv—OO799—JRG Document 37-4 Filed 05/31/13 Page 3 of 4 Page|D #: 1414
`
`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,
`
`:nc., 489 Fed. App’x 465, 465 (Fed. Cir. 2012).
`
`The instant case presents a similar set of circumstances.
`
`Plaintiff B.E. Technology, LLC, filed a patent—infringement
`
`action against Defendant on September 7, 2012.
`
`(ECF No. 1.)
`
`Defendant filed its Answer on December 31, 2012 (ECF No. 27},
`
`and a Motion To Change Venue on January 10, 2013 (ECF No. 29),
`
`seeking transfer to the United States District Court for the
`
`Northern District of California. Discovery will soon commence
`
`as Defendant's Non—Infringement Contentions are due under the
`
`Local Patent Rules by February 21, 2013.
`
`(gee ECF No. 40.)
`
`Staying the proceedings — including the Local Patent Rule
`
`disclosures and fact discovery — will allow the Court
`
`to
`
`properly decide the pending Motion to Change Venue in light of
`
`judicial economy and comity.
`
`See 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 —
`
`including Local Patent Rule disclosures and fact discovery — are
`
`
`
`Case 6:12-cv-00799-JRG Document 37-4 Filed 05/31/13 Page 4 of 4 PageID #: 1415
`Case 6:12—cv—OO799—JRG Document 37-4 Filed 05/31/13 Page 4 of 4 Page|D #: 1415
`
`hereby stayed pending the outcome of Defendant's Motion To
`
`Change Venue and further Order by the Court.
`
`IT IS SO ORDERED this 8th day of February, 2013.
`
`5/ Jon P. Mccalla
`CHIEF U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE