IN RE: Triax Company Patent Litigation

| | |
| . r Case MDL i poeumen 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 3
590 335 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT, .
: is presently seeking to quash service of S.D.Ohio, Civil Act bn No. C-2-74-173
process on him and to dismiss the action be, and the same hdreby is transferred
_- in Ohio. He argues that the Panel to the District of &olorado and, with
should defer igg.qn the propriety of the consent of that pourt, assigned to
transfer of this fiction until the Ohio the Honorable Shermgan G. Finesilver"court decides his fnotions to quash serv-- for coordinated “os colsolidated pretrial “
ice of process ang to dismiss. Boucher proceedings with the®previously trans-
agrees that if sakl motions are denied, ferred actions.
Ha transfer of this fction to the District \ to: of Colorado would be most appropriate. =. : .
It is clear thal the allegations con- re
tained in Ohio's gomplaint raise ques- : }
tions of fact common to those raised in’ ! -. ] ” }
some of the actiolis already pending in ~ :
the transferee cou t. Thus, we perceive - ‘
no reason to delay ransfer of this action .
i under Section 1404. Defendant's argu-_ Co -
" ment to the contgary is not persuasive In re the TRIAX COMPANY PAT- :
} because the trangferee court has the ENT LITIGATION. .
. power to decide dg fendant's motions to No. 182. E :
: quash service of 4roCess and to dismiss. Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. :	; n re Duarte, California, Air Crash
;Fa Disaster, 354 FSupp. 278 (Jud.Pan. = Nov. 26, 1974. ._~a _ Mult.Lit.1973); In re Gypsum Wall- .
® bn	0 Dp 0GUT it Ea on iea . iy. } . A igation transferred a patent iniringe-
FTE booy ely whiehiby ment action in Northern District of Ii- ': a °. linois to Northern District of Ohio for: a transferee cour} applying the law as oo . .i : & coordinated or consolidated pretrial pro- .: applied by the tr nsferor court. In re di . . RA :: Duarte, Californid, Air Crash Disaster, cee ings with two pending infringement or: supra; In re Puefto Rico Air Disaster actions involving same patents mn thatLitigation, 340 F.Supp. 492 (D.P.R. common questions of fact were involved
: 1972). - and transfer would best serve conven-	: 3 oo ience of parties and witnesses and pro- |
: Furthermore, 2a Section 1407 trans- mote just and efficient conduct of liti-
fer of this action fat this time to the gation,
) District of Cdloralio will permit the Ord ding] .transferee judge to tonsider defendant's rder accordingly. :
Cod motions individually or concurrently oo EE
- with other sirailar notions already be- Courts E=277.2 : .
fore him.® Thus, transfer will promote yederal Civil Procedure S29 Co .
judicial economy an avoid inconsistent Patent infringement action in. .
© adjudications of ideptical questions of Northern District of Illinois was trans-
fact or law presentedby similar motions ferred by Judicial Panel on Multidistrict :
in related actions. Litigation to Northern District of Ohio .
: It is thevefore ord ed that, pursuant for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the action entitled proceedings with two pending infringe- :
State of Ohiogv. A. owland Boucher, ment actions involving same patents in
LF ) Co“a » 3. "Tho parties have noted in their briefs that Ine., ct al, 8.1)0.0hio, Civil Action No, 72-134, :: defendant Jolliot Keene Wolcott has similar which haa been transferred to the District of ,
C 0, rootions pending in State of Ohio v. Crofters, Colorado and assigned fo Judge Finesilver.

. + Case MDL No. 182 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 3
} N © _ INRETRIAX COMPANY PATENTLITIGATION 591I ’ : | Cite as 385 F.Supp. 500 (1974) :© © that common questions of fact were in- the just and efficient conduct of the lit-
‘ volved and transfer would best serve igation. }
* convenience of parties and witnesses and Plaintiff contends that common factual =
co promote just and efficient conduct of questions exist because the validity oflitigation. 28 U.S.C.A. §1407. at least two of the four patents is in- :
‘volved in all of the actions. It urges .
_' that transfer under Section 1407 would
~ Before ALFRED P. MURRAH, Chair- prevent the danger of inconsistent pre-man, and JOHN MINOR WISDOM, ED- trial rulings and eliminate duplicative :
oo ~ WARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROB- discovery on the common issues.
.. SON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH Defendant Hartman Metal Fabrica-
co S. LORD, IIi* and STANLEY A. tors, Inc! argues that there are no com-
: oe WEIGEL, Judges of the Panel. . mon questions of fact in this litigation
oo . because the infringement issues are :. OPINION AND ORDER - tinique as to each defendant. While de-
’ : } - fendant Conco generally agrees with de-
PER CURIAM. fendant Hartman's contention, Conco
Co The Triax Company is the owner of - further avers that its warehousing sys-
‘ . four patents, which are intricate ele- tem controls have heen developed at con-
ments of an electrical control system siderable expense and involve proprie- .
"utilized in warehouse equipment to auto- tary information that’ should not be
‘matically discharge and retrieve various available to its competitors via coordinat- .
= storage items. It has commenced three ed or consolidated discovery proceedings.5, "patent infringement actions against three An examination of the pleadings in
C . separate defendants: one in the North- this litigation reveals that, despite theern District of Illinois and two in the unique infringement issues, significant
Es Northern District of Ohio. Plaintiff al- common factual questions are raised re-. leges that each defendant has infringed garding the validity of these patents. If
: and is continuing to infringe at least pretrial proceedings in each action are
: ‘two of its four patents by manufacturing, neither coordinated nor consolidated, in-: ) utilizing and/or selling automatic ware- consistent pretrial rulings and unneces-: housing equipment that embodies these sary duplication of discovery might re-
: . "patents. sult. Moreover, defendant Conco’s con-
: Triax moves the Panel for an order cern that its proprietary information ”
.. ". transferring the Illinois action to the about automatic warehouse system con- -
Northern District of Ohio for coordi- trols would be divulged during the course
BEE nated or consolidated pretrial proceed- of coordinated or consolidated pretrialings with the two similar actions cur- proceedings is unwarranted. Defendant
rently pending there. Transfer is op- Conco can preserve the confidentiality .
“1 - posed by defendants TRW, Inc: and Con-. of its trade secrets by seeking an appro- -N - co, Inc., but not by defendant Otis Ele priate protective order from the trans-
oo vator Co. We find that these actions feree court.
oo . involve common questions of fact and Regarding the logical trausferee court, ~that their transfer to the Northern Dis- defendant Conco opposes transfer of its
"trict of Ohio, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § action to Ohio because its witnesses and ’
- 1407, will best serve the convenience documents pertaining to the allegedly in-
of the parties and witnesses and promote fringed patents are located in Illinois.
' C+ Judge Lord was unable to attend the DPanel man is now obligated to defend TRW in its
i) hearing and, therefore, took no part in the action and has submitted a brief in opposi-\ J . . consideration or decision of this matter. tion to transfer. ’
C : {. Pursuant to n contract between Ylartinun ‘ ’	‘, Metal Fabricators, Inc. and TRW, Ine, IIart-

i .
| ) + Case MDL No. 182 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 3 of 3 .
| : . heidi Ban icii . .
Wie: : :
® 542 385 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT+7 Nonetheless, we agree with plaintiff It’ is therefore ordered thut the action To.
: Triax that the most appropriate tvans- entitled The Triax Company v. Coico,
: ferce forum is the Northern District of Inc, N.D.Illinois, Civil Action No. 714-C~
: 7 Ohio, particularly since two of the three 2157, be, and the same hereby is, trans-
A actions in this litigation ave pending ferred to the Northern District of Ohio
- there and because discovery in boih ac- and, with the consent of that court, as-
i tions is proceeding before Chief Judge signed to the Honorable Frank J. Bat-
Frank Battisti. Furthermore, plaintiff tiisti for coordinated or consolidated pre- ]
Triax is incorporated and doing business trial proceedings pursuant to 28 U.3.C.
in Ohio and moat of its relevant wit- ~ § 1407 with the actions listed on -
nesses and documents concerning the Schedule A that are pending in that dis-
common factual issues of validity are lo- trict. :
cated in that district. And it is of little i
consequence that defendant Conco’s rec- SCHEDULE A :
ords and witnesses ave located in Illinois Northern District of Ohio ’ -
. because discovery concerning Conco pre-e Triax Company v. TRW, Inc. Civil Action
sumably will cceur in [llinois regardless Ne. C 73-820
: of transfer. While the same point can The Triax Company v. Otis Ble Cl Ad	. as . .r - vator 0. -5
be asserted against plaintiff Triax, it is Northern District of Hines”	- . . oe N L 15 Cc Hoos
Co clear that additional factors favor trans- ——
) £ ft ii; . . . . The Triax Company v. Conco, Inc. Civil Action	SA er of the Illinois action to Ohio. . No. T4—C-2157 -
! . . . - N ) . . . - R ©
. ’ ’ : ’
7 ,