IN RE: Multidistrict Litigation Involving Deering Milliken Patent

Case MDL No. 49 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 1 of 5
3 So ms
LL Co FILED EE
me * THE JUDICIAL PANEL AUG	2 1 1979 | EE .
MULT IDISTRIOT LITIGATION PATRICIA 1, poppy _ i : _ co - Ca
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION INVOLVING ) we Hn
DEERING MILLIKEN PATENT ) DOCKET NO. 49 hi
. OPINION AND ORDER EN
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM, ERA : So
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. ERI he Lo
LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL : soe
"STANLEY A, WEIGEL, JUDGE OF THE PANEL. IE
The cases included in this proceeding involve ) CIC
(1) Deering Milliken Research Corporation (hereinafter DMRC) - CL : Co
| which is purportedly the exclusive United States licensee of EEE
a variety .of French patents and (2) fourteen of DMRC's sub- oo Lo
} licensees. The license agreements cover patented processes . - E
+ for endowing fiber with a "false twist" which gives yarn B - E J
stretch and bulk. co oo
Following the Supreme Court decision in Lear v. Adkins, Co a
395 U.S. 653 (1969), DMRC and the fourteen sublicensees have oo
become involved in litigation involving the validity of the Co oC
©. underlying patents. DMRC is the plaintiff	in eleven cases in } oo -
the District of South Carolina and in two in the Western District
“of Virginia. The sublicensees are plaintiffs against DMRC in
eleven actions in the Middle District of North Carolina and in -
~ one in the Southern District of New York. Thus, the litigation oo Co

Case MDL No. 49 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	2 of 5
|©
{i
® now encompasses at least 25 actions pending in at least four H
NS 4
different districts.
On May 26, 1970, the Panel ordered the parties to
show cause why these actions should not be transferred to a
single district for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial
proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. Briefs were submitted
and the matter was argued on June 26, 1970.
All parties concede that these actions involve common |
questions of fact. This jurisdictional requirement having been
met, the panel proceeds to consider those matters significant
in determining whether transfer under Section 1407 would serve |
the convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of
® justice. See In re Aircraft Disaster at Falls City, Nebraska,
© 298 F. Supp. 1323, 1324 (J.P.M.L. 1969).
There is a reasonable prospect that the multidistrict .
‘character of all the cases here before us may be eliminated
-. | by district court action on motions presently pending. DMRC
has moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), in all of the cases outside
~ of the District of South Carolina, for transfer to that district.
In North Carolina, one or more such motions are ready for |
argument (briefing and request for hearing having been completed
on March 23, 1970). In New York, DMRC's transfer motion has ;
been submitted for decision.
1/ There are tag-along cases in both the District of South aCarolina and the Middle District of North Carolina which are
® not now before us. -

Case MDL No. 49 Document2 Filed 04/30/15 Page	3 of 5
yo. T : - 3 =
If the Section 1404 (a) motions filed by DMRC are
granted, all the actions in this litigation will be for all
| 2/
purposes in a single district. Since any such result would
eliminate any need for our action under Section 1407, the Panel
has concluded to deny transfer under Section 1407 at this time.
2/ At least four of the sublicensee defendants have filed
Section 1404 (a) motions to transfer actions presently in South
Carolina to the Middle District of North Carolina. If these
[ motions are granted or the DMRC motions are denied, the multi-
district nature of the litigation, barring other developments,
would be retained and further action by the Panel might be
appropriate. }

Case MDL No. 49 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 4 of 5
“+. ° SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 49
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK :
Duplan Corporation v. Deering Milliken Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 69 Civ 5197
WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
Deering Milliken Research Corp. Vv. civil Action
Schwarzenbach Huber Co. No. 69-C-15-H
Deering Milliken Research Corp. v. Frank Civil Action
IX and Sons Virginia Corp. No. 69-C-10-C
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
Deering Milliken Research Corp. v. © Civil Action
Textured Fibres, Inc., et al. No. 68-705
Deering Milliken Research Corp. v. Civil Action
Blanchard Yarn Company, Inc. No. 69-777
Deering Milliken Research Corp. v. Civil Action :
Duplan Corp., et al. No. 69-1096
® Deering Milliken Research Corp. Vv. Civil ActionSpring-Tex, Inc. No, 70-250
Deering Milliken Research Corp. Vv. Civil Action
- Butte Knitting Mills No. 70-385
Deering Milliken Research Corp. v. Frank Civil Action
IX and Sons Virginia Corp. No. 70-493
Deering Milliken Research Corp. Vv. Civil ACtion
: Hemmerich Industries, Inc. : No. 70-391
Deering Milliken Research Corp. v. Civil Action
Leon-Ferenbach, Inc. No. 70-386
- ‘Deering Milliken Research Corp. v. : Civil Action
i Madison Throwing Company No. 70-14 )
Deering Milliken Research Corp. v. Civil Action
7 Olympia Mills, Inc. No. 70-358
Deering Milliken Research Corp. v. The Civil Action
Schwarzenbach Huber Company No. 70-295

Case MDL No. 49 Document 2 Filed 04/30/15 Page 5 of 5
® ’ SCHEDULE A -2 - : DOCKET NO. 49
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
Throwing Corporation of America v. Civil Action
Deering Milliken Research Corp., et al. No. C-140-G-68
Textured Fibers, Inc. v. Deering Civil Action
Milliken Research Corp., et al. No. C-141-G-68
Schwarzenbach-Huber Co. v. Deering Civil Action
Milliken Research Corp., et al. No. C-70-G-70
Spring-Tex, Inc. Vv. Deering Milliken Civil Action
Research Corp., et al. No. C-85-G-70
Leon-Ferenbach Inc. v. Deering Milliken Civil Action
Research Corp., et al. No. C-88-G-70
Jonathan Logen, Inc. Vv. Deering Milliken Civil Action
: Research Corp., et al. No. C-90~G~-70
Olympia Mills, Inc. v. Deering Milliken Civil Action
Research Corp., et al. No. C-93-G-70
C Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Deering Civil Action	Milliken Research Corp., et al. No. C-105-G-70
Madison Throwing Company, Inc. Vv. Deering Civil Action
Milliken Research Corp., et al. No. C-106-G-70
Frank IX and Sons Virginia Corp. v. Civil Action
: Deering Milliken Research Corp., et al. No. C-116-G~70
Blanchard Yarn Company, Inc. v. Deering Civil Action
Milliken Research Corp., et al. No. C-123-G-70