IN RE: Corporate Communications Consultants, Inc., Patent Litigation

co Case MDL No. 620° Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page	1 of 3
JUTIIAL PANEL OY
peo TesTRST U0ALSH
FILED
MAR -5 1565
DOCKET NO. 620 FATRIDIAO.	| oy 2nd
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATLERK	OF Ti= Fill
IN RE CORPORATE COMMUNICATIONS CONSULTANTS, INC., PATENT LITIGATION
TRANSFER ORDER#¥
This docket presepfly consists of ten actions pending in tendistricts as follows:=
C.D. California l action
N.D. California 1 action
M.D. Florida 1 action
N.D. Georgia 1 action
N.D. Illinois 1 action :
E.D. Michigan 1 action
D. Minnesota 1 action
D. New Jersey 1 action
ae S.D. New York 1 action
D. Utah 1 action
Before the Panel is a motion by Corporate Communications Consultants,
C ac., (CCC), the plaintiff in all actions, to centralize the actions	’ a the Southern District of New York pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 for
EE coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. Five parties state
that they support or do not oppose transfer, and 33 parties have
responded in opposition to transfer. In the event the Panel does
order transfer, various parties have suggested the Central District of
California, the Northern District of Georgia and the Northern District
of Illinois as alternative transferee forums.
¥ Judge Sam C. Pointer, Jr., took no part in the decision of this
matter.
1/ On January 3, 1985, movant moved to amend its motion to include
ten additional newly filed actions pending, respectively, in D.
District of Columbia, N.D. Georgla, E.D. Louisiana, D. Maryland, D.
Massachusetts, S.D. New York, D. New Jersey, D. Oregon, E.D.
Pennsylvania, and W.D.Pennsylvania. This occurred too late for the
actions to be included in the January 24, 1985, hearing held in this
docket. These actions will be treated as potential tag-along actions
in accordance with the Panel's Rules. See Rules 9 and 10,
R.P.J.P.M.L., 89 F.R.D. 273, 278-80 (1981).

Case MDL No. 620 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 3 “0
= ®
On the basls of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panelfinds that these actions involve common questions of fact and that
centralization under 28 U.S.C. §1407 in the Southern District of NewYork will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and
promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. There areapproximately 70 remaining defendants in the ten actions. All but oneof these defendants are accused of infringing CCC's "Rainbow" patent(which pertains to video color correction devices), and all but fiveare accused of conspiring with two of the five unnamed defendants toboycott CCC's patent license offers in violation of the antitrustjaws. Transfer under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminateduplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and con-serve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiclary.
We are persuaded that the Southern District of New York is the
appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. We note, interalia, that 1) the Honorable John E. Sprizzo, to whom we are assigningthis litigation, has already gained familiarity with the issues in the
J litigation as a result of presiding over an earlier filed related, action; and 2) documents and witnesses concerning the patent validityjssue are likely to be found at CCC's headquarters in the New Yorkmetropolitan area.
IT IS THEREFORE ordered that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the
PE actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending outside theSouthern District of New York be, and the same hereby are, transferre
to the Southern District of New York and, with the consent of thatcourt, assigned to the Honorable John E. Sprizzo for coordinated orconsolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending in thatdistrict and listed on Schedule A.
FOR THE PANEL:
Andrew A. C ey
ee Chairman

~ ae Case MDL No. 620 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page	3 of 3
| SCHEDULE A
@ -- In re Corporate Communications Consultants, Inc.	Patent Litigation
Central District	of California :
Corporate Communications Consultants, Inc. v. AME, Inc., et
al., C.A. No. CV-BL-LL5L DWW (Mcx)
Northern District of California
Qorporate Communications Consultants, Inc. v. One Pass, Inc.,et al., C.A. No. - iS
Middle District	of Florida
Corporate Communications ‘Consultants, Inc. V. Digital Video
Corp., et al., C.A. No. ~633-Civ-Orl-1
Northern District of Georgia
Corporate Communications Consultants, Inc. Vv. Crawford
Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. C-84-10L60A
Northern District of Illinois
Corporate Communications Consultants, Inc. v. Edit/Chicago,
@® Inc., et al., C.A. No. -C- 0
4 - Eastern District of Michigan
Corporate Communications Consultants Inc. v. Allied Film
Laboratory, Inc., et al., C.A. No. BL-CvV-3088 DT
District of Minnesota oo |
Corporate Communications Consultants, Inc. Vv. Northwest
: Teleproductions, Tnc., C.A. No. T-BG-Civ-T71
District of New Jersey
Corporate Communications Consultants, Inc. v. Dubner Computer
District of Utah
Corporate Communications Consultants, Inc. Vv. Telemation
Productions, Inc., et al., C.A. No. C-BL-669W
Southern District of New York
Corporate Communications Consultants, Inc. v. American Video
C Channels, Inc., et al., C.A. No. BL4-Civ-0178