Document
IPR2014-00052, No. 39 Order - Order Trial Hearing 35 USC 316a10 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2014)
Petitioner may reserve rebuttal time to respond to Patent Owner’s presentation with respect to both cases.
The hearing for IPR2014-00052 and IPR2014-00053 will commence at 9:30 AM Eastern Time, on December 10, 2014, and it will be open to the public for in-person attendance, on the ninth floor of Madison Building East, 600 Dulany Street, Alexandria, Virginia.
They shall be filed at the Board two business days prior to the hearing, and the parties must initiate a conference call with the Board by two business days prior to the hearing to resolve any dispute over the propriety of each party’s demonstrative exhibits.
Any dispute over the propriety of demonstrative exhibits that is not timely presented two business days prior to the hearing will be considered waived.
The parties are reminded that the presenter must identify clearly and specifically each demonstrative exhibit (e.g., by slide or screen number) referenced during the hearing to ensure the clarity and accuracy of the reporter’s transcript.
Cite Document
IPR2014-00052, No. 39 Order - Order Trial Hearing 35 USC 316a10 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 14, 2014)
+ More Snippets
Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Pandora Media, Inc., 2:12-cv-02782, No. 43 (W.D.Tenn. Jul. 12, 2013)
(Id.) Pandora states that its “management, along with it primary research, development, and engineering facilities, are located in the Northern District of California,” and that “the vast majority of Pandora’s potentially relevant defense witnesses and evidence related to the research, design, and development of the accused applications, including those whom Pandora anticipates including in its initial disclosure, are located within” the transferee district, as well.
Tenn. June 12, 2006) (applying the appropriate private- and public-interest factors but relying on the forum-non-conveniens doctrine to accord strong deference to the plaintiff’s choice of forum), with OneStockDuq Holdings, LLC v. Becton, Dickinson, & Co., No. 2:12–cv–03037–JPM–tmp, 2013 WL 1136726, at *3 (W.D.
As a result, Pandora contends that the “vast majority of the physical and documentary evidence relevant to the issues of Pandora’s alleged infringement, invalidity, and damages” is also located in the transferee district.
also contends that “the location of relevant documentary evidence is increasingly less important in deciding motions to transfer,” and that because documents can be exchanged electronically the weight given this factor should be minimal.
finally argues that this factor does not weigh in favor of transfer because “it can be expected that Pandora will eventually produce its documents to B.E.’s lead counsel in California, not to B.E.
Cite Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Pandora Media, Inc., 2:12-cv-02782, No. 43 (W.D.Tenn. Jul. 12, 2013)
+ More Snippets
Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Google Inc., 2:12-cv-02830, No. 44 (W.D.Tenn. Apr. 4, 2013)
Technology”) Motion for Oral Argument (ECF No. 43), filed March 18, 2013.
Technology seeks oral argument regarding Defendant Google, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “Google”) Motion to Change Venue (ECF No. 22), filed December 18, 2012.
Plaintiff filed its Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 29) on January 7, 2013.
With leave of Court, Defendant filed its Reply (ECF No. 37) on January 29, 2013.
Technology asserts that an oral hearing on the Motion will “enable [Plaintiff] adequately to respond to the arguments and evidence presented by [Google’s] reply memoranda,” and “provide the Court a forum to ask any questions it may have before deciding these important issues.” (ECF No. 43 at 1–2.)
Cite Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Google Inc., 2:12-cv-02830, No. 44 (W.D.Tenn. Apr. 4, 2013)
+ More Snippets
Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Match.com L.L.C., 2:12-cv-02834, No. 42 (W.D.Tenn. Apr. 4, 2013)
Technology”) Motion for Oral Argument (ECF No. 41), filed March 18, 2013.
Technology seeks oral argument regarding Defendant Match.com LLC’s (“Defendant” or “Match.com”) Motion to Change Venue (ECF No. 32), filed February 5, 2013.
Plaintiff filed its Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 37) on February 22, 2013.
With leave of Court, Defendant filed its Reply (ECF No. 40) on March 11, 2013.
Technology asserts that an oral hearing on the Motion will “enable [Plaintiff] adequately to respond to the arguments and evidence presented by [Match.com’s] reply memoranda,” and “provide the Court a forum to ask any questions it may have before deciding these important issues.” (ECF No. 41 at 1–2.)
Cite Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Match.com L.L.C., 2:12-cv-02834, No. 42 (W.D.Tenn. Apr. 4, 2013)
+ More Snippets
Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc., 2:12-cv-02769, No. 56 (W.D.Tenn. Jun. 21, 2013)
Before the Court are sixteen pending motions to transfer venue in sixteen of the above- captioned cases.1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(a) and in the interest of judicial economy, the Court hereby schedules an initial case management conference for all nineteen above-captioned cases (the “B.E.
Attorneys for the parties should confer and should be prepared to discuss the issues as raised in their individual Patent Scheduling Conference Notices,2 including but not limited to: the nature of the cases; the possibility of consolidation of the cases for claim construction and/or trial; the timing of individual patent scheduling conferences; the level of coordination among Defendants given the differences in the parties, the patents at issue, and the products and services at issue; common discovery issues and the accompanying coordination of said discovery; and any proposed modifications to the Local Patent Rules of this Court.
The parties should also be prepared to make a coordinated initial technology presentation, not to exceed three (3) hours to be shared among the Plaintiff and Defendants, relating to the patents-in-suit and the allegedly infringing products and services.
The parties shall meet and confer in good faith prior to the initial case management conference.
The parties shall submit to the Court, seven (7) days in advance of the initial case management conference, a joint schedule establishing the sequence of presentations for the initial case management conference, the subjects to be discussed, the technology to be presented, the presenters for said technology, and proposed schedules in their respective cases.
Cite Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Facebook, Inc., 2:12-cv-02769, No. 56 (W.D.Tenn. Jun. 21, 2013)
+ More Snippets
Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Groupon, Inc., 2:12-cv-02781, No. 37 (W.D.Tenn. Jun. 21, 2013)
Before the Court are sixteen pending motions to transfer venue in sixteen of the above- captioned cases.1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(a) and in the interest of judicial economy, the Court hereby schedules an initial case management conference for all nineteen above-captioned cases (the “B.E.
Attorneys for the parties should confer and should be prepared to discuss the issues as raised in their individual Patent Scheduling Conference Notices,2 including but not limited to: the nature of the cases; the possibility of consolidation of the cases for claim construction and/or trial; the timing of individual patent scheduling conferences; the level of coordination among Defendants given the differences in the parties, the patents at issue, and the products and services at issue; common discovery issues and the accompanying coordination of said discovery; and any proposed modifications to the Local Patent Rules of this Court.
The parties should also be prepared to make a coordinated initial technology presentation, not to exceed three (3) hours to be shared among the Plaintiff and Defendants, relating to the patents-in-suit and the allegedly infringing products and services.
The parties shall meet and confer in good faith prior to the initial case management conference.
The parties shall submit to the Court, seven (7) days in advance of the initial case management conference, a joint schedule establishing the sequence of presentations for the initial case management conference, the subjects to be discussed, the technology to be presented, the presenters for said technology, and proposed schedules in their respective cases.
Cite Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Groupon, Inc., 2:12-cv-02781, No. 37 (W.D.Tenn. Jun. 21, 2013)
+ More Snippets
Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. People Media, Inc., 2:12-cv-02833, No. 74 (W.D.Tenn. Jun. 22, 2015)
On April 15, 2015, the parties to this action (and the seventeen related actions by plaintiff) filed a Joint Interim Status Notice to provide the Court with updated information on the inter partes reviews initiated during 2014, consistent with the Order Granting Motions to Stay entered on December 6, 2013.1 In that April notice, the parties reported that the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office had entered written 1 / The Order Granting Motions to Stay bears differing ECF Numbers among the eighteen related cases.
The inter partes review proceedings are identified by IPR Number, Patent, Claims, and Filer in notices previously filed with the Court, one counterpart of which is ECF No. 75 in the Amazon case.
decisions in those proceedings, finding that every claim of U.S. Patent Numbers 6,771,290 and 6,628,314 asserted against any of the eighteen defendants in these actions is unpatentable.
Since that joint notice, plaintiff has in fact commenced appeals of the PTAB decisions in all eleven of the inter parties review proceedings.
The parties continue their commitment to apprise the Court promptly of developments that logically would warrant consideration of dissolving or modifying the stays or a resumed case schedule.
Cite Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. People Media, Inc., 2:12-cv-02833, No. 74 (W.D.Tenn. Jun. 22, 2015)
+ More Snippets
Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. People Media, Inc., 2:12-cv-02833, No. 73 (W.D.Tenn. Jun. 22, 2015)
On April 15, 2015, the parties to this action (and the seventeen related actions by plaintiff) filed a Joint Interim Status Notice to provide the Court with updated information on the inter partes reviews initiated during 2014, consistent with the Order Granting Motions to Stay entered on December 6, 2013.1 In that April notice, the parties reported that the Patent Trial and
1 / The Order Granting Motions to Stay bears differing ECF Numbers among the eighteen related cases.
The inter partes review proceedings are identified by IPR Number, Patent, Claims, and Filer in notices previously filed with the Court, one counterpart of which is ECF No. 75 in the Amazon case.
Since that joint notice, plaintiff has in fact commenced appeals of the PTAB decisions in all eleven of the inter parties review proceedings.
The parties continue their commitment to apprise the Court promptly of developments that logically would warrant consideration of dissolving or modifying the stays or a resumed case schedule.
Cite Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. People Media, Inc., 2:12-cv-02833, No. 73 (W.D.Tenn. Jun. 22, 2015)
+ More Snippets
Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Twitter, Inc., 2:12-cv-02783, No. 40 (W.D.Tenn. Jun. 21, 2013)
Before the Court are sixteen pending motions to transfer venue in sixteen of the above- captioned cases.1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(a) and in the interest of judicial economy, the Court hereby schedules an initial case management conference for all nineteen above-captioned cases (the “B.E.
Attorneys for the parties should confer and should be prepared to discuss the issues as raised in their individual Patent Scheduling Conference Notices,2 including but not limited to: the nature of the cases; the possibility of consolidation of the cases for claim construction and/or trial; the timing of individual patent scheduling conferences; the level of coordination among Defendants given the differences in the parties, the patents at issue, and the products and services at issue; common discovery issues and the accompanying coordination of said discovery; and any proposed modifications to the Local Patent Rules of this Court.
The parties should also be prepared to make a coordinated initial technology presentation, not to exceed three (3) hours to be shared among the Plaintiff and Defendants, relating to the patents-in-suit and the allegedly infringing products and services.
The parties shall meet and confer in good faith prior to the initial case management conference.
The parties shall submit to the Court, seven (7) days in advance of the initial case management conference, a joint schedule establishing the sequence of presentations for the initial case management conference, the subjects to be discussed, the technology to be presented, the presenters for said technology, and proposed schedules in their respective cases.
Cite Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Twitter, Inc., 2:12-cv-02783, No. 40 (W.D.Tenn. Jun. 21, 2013)
+ More Snippets
Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. LinkedIn Corporation, 2:12-cv-02772, No. 42 (W.D.Tenn. Jun. 21, 2013)
Before the Court are sixteen pending motions to transfer venue in sixteen of the above- captioned cases.1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(a) and in the interest of judicial economy, the Court hereby schedules an initial case management conference for all nineteen above-captioned cases (the “B.E.
Attorneys for the parties should confer and should be prepared to discuss the issues as raised in their individual Patent Scheduling Conference Notices,2 including but not limited to: the nature of the cases; the possibility of consolidation of the cases for claim construction and/or trial; the timing of individual patent scheduling conferences; the level of coordination among Defendants given the differences in the parties, the patents at issue, and the products and services at issue; common discovery issues and the accompanying coordination of said discovery; and any proposed modifications to the Local Patent Rules of this Court.
The parties should also be prepared to make a coordinated initial technology presentation, not to exceed three (3) hours to be shared among the Plaintiff and Defendants, relating to the patents-in-suit and the allegedly infringing products and services.
The parties shall meet and confer in good faith prior to the initial case management conference.
The parties shall submit to the Court, seven (7) days in advance of the initial case management conference, a joint schedule establishing the sequence of presentations for the initial case management conference, the subjects to be discussed, the technology to be presented, the presenters for said technology, and proposed schedules in their respective cases.
Cite Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. LinkedIn Corporation, 2:12-cv-02772, No. 42 (W.D.Tenn. Jun. 21, 2013)
+ More Snippets
Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Pandora Media, Inc., 2:12-cv-02782, No. 41 (W.D.Tenn. Jun. 21, 2013)
Before the Court are sixteen pending motions to transfer venue in sixteen of the above- captioned cases.1 Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 16(a) and in the interest of judicial economy, the Court hereby schedules an initial case management conference for all nineteen above-captioned cases (the “B.E.
Attorneys for the parties should confer and should be prepared to discuss the issues as raised in their individual Patent Scheduling Conference Notices,2 including but not limited to: the nature of the cases; the possibility of consolidation of the cases for claim construction and/or trial; the timing of individual patent scheduling conferences; the level of coordination among Defendants given the differences in the parties, the patents at issue, and the products and services at issue; common discovery issues and the accompanying coordination of said discovery; and any proposed modifications to the Local Patent Rules of this Court.
The parties should also be prepared to make a coordinated initial technology presentation, not to exceed three (3) hours to be shared among the Plaintiff and Defendants, relating to the patents-in-suit and the allegedly infringing products and services.
The parties shall meet and confer in good faith prior to the initial case management conference.
The parties shall submit to the Court, seven (7) days in advance of the initial case management conference, a joint schedule establishing the sequence of presentations for the initial case management conference, the subjects to be discussed, the technology to be presented, the presenters for said technology, and proposed schedules in their respective cases.
Cite Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Pandora Media, Inc., 2:12-cv-02782, No. 41 (W.D.Tenn. Jun. 21, 2013)
+ More Snippets
Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Apple Inc., 2:12-cv-02831, No. 44 (W.D.Tenn. Apr. 4, 2013)
Technology”) Motion for Oral Argument (ECF No. 43), filed March 18, 2013.
Technology seeks oral argument regarding Defendant Apple Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “Apple”) Motion to Change Venue (ECF No. 22), filed December 20, 2012.
Plaintiff filed its Response in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion (ECF No. 30) on January 7, 2013.
With leave of Court, Defendant filed its Reply (ECF No. 39) on January 29, 2013.
Technology asserts that an oral hearing on the Motion will “enable [Plaintiff] adequately to respond to the arguments and evidence presented by [Apple’s] reply memoranda,” and “provide the Court a forum to ask any questions it may have before deciding these important issues.” (ECF No. 43 at 1–2.)
Cite Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Apple Inc., 2:12-cv-02831, No. 44 (W.D.Tenn. Apr. 4, 2013)
+ More Snippets
Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Google Inc., 2:12-cv-02830, No. 70 (W.D.Tenn. Apr. 15, 2015)
Consistent with the Order Granting Motions to Stay entered in these related patent infringement actions on December 6, 2013,1 the parties are filing this Notice to apprise the Court that over the past seven days, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has entered written decisions in the eleven inter partes reviews
1 / The Order Granting Motions to Stay bears differing ECF Numbers among the eighteen related cases.
initiated by seven of the defendants during 2014,2 finding that every claim of U.S. Patent Numbers 6,771,290 and 6,628,314 asserted against any of the eighteen defendants in these actions is unpatentable.
The parties will keep the Court informed of material developments, and in the interim are not requesting that the stay in any action be lifted or that the Court take other action until the plaintiff decides whether to appeal one or more of the PTAB decisions.
2 / The subject inter partes review proceedings are identified by IPR Number, Patent, Claims, and Filer in notices previously filed with the Court, one counterpart of which is ECF No. 75 in Case No. 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp.
Cite Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Google Inc., 2:12-cv-02830, No. 70 (W.D.Tenn. Apr. 15, 2015)
+ More Snippets
Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Google Inc., 2:12-cv-02830, No. 71 (W.D.Tenn. Apr. 15, 2015)
Consistent with the Order Granting Motions to Stay entered in these related patent infringement actions on December 6, 2013,1 the parties are filing this Notice to apprise the Court that over the past seven days, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (“PTAB”) of the United States Patent and Trademark Office has entered written decisions in the eleven inter partes reviews
1 The Order Granting Motions to Stay bears differing ECF Numbers among the eighteen related cases.
4841-6884-4067.1 initiated by seven of the defendants during 2014,2 finding that every claim of U.S. Patent Numbers 6,771,290 and 6,628,314 asserted against any of the eighteen defendants in these actions is unpatentable.
The parties will keep the Court informed of material developments, and in the interim are not requesting that the stay in any action be lifted or that the Court take other action until the plaintiff decides whether to appeal one or more of the PTAB decisions.
Technology, L.L.C. 2 The subject inter partes review proceedings are identified by IPR Number, Patent, Claims, and Filer in notices previously filed with the Court, one counterpart of which is ECF No. 75 in Case No. 2:12-cv-02767-JPM-tmp.
Cite Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Google Inc., 2:12-cv-02830, No. 71 (W.D.Tenn. Apr. 15, 2015)
+ More Snippets
Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Match.com L.L.C., 2:12-cv-02834, No. 39 (W.D.Tenn. Mar. 4, 2013)
Motion to FileGranted
Before the Court is the Defendant’s Motion for Leave to File Reply Brief in support of its Motion to Transfer Venue (ECF No. 38), filed March 1, 2013.
For good cause shown, the Motion is GRANTED.
Defendant shall have seven (7) days from the entry of this Order, up to and including March 11, 2013, to file its reply brief, not to exceed ten (10) pages in length.
IT IS SO ORDERED this 4th day of March, 2013.
Cite Document
B.E. Technology, L.L.C. v. Match.com L.L.C., 2:12-cv-02834, No. 39 (W.D.Tenn. Mar. 4, 2013)
+ More Snippets