IN RE: Multidistrict Patent Litigation Involving the Kaehni Patent

Case MDL No. 36 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 5
Fy 7 ! A340 ——JUDICIAL PANEL ON Na
: MULTIDISTRICT. LITIGATION Te
| FILED sree I
THE JUDICIAL PANEL mel
ON MAR 3 11970 - Coe
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Sa -
BATRICIA D. HOWARD : a
CLERK QF THE PANEL co
MULTIDISTRICT PATENT LITIGATION ) 3
INVOLVING THE KAEHNI PATENT ) DOCKET NO. 36
OPINION AND ORDER x CE
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM,
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON*, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH
S$. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
PER CURIAM oo oo
The nine actions involved in this multidistrict litigation
were brought by Frank J. Kaehni and Marie Kaehni and each charge
the infringement of United States Patent No. 2,463,280. Like
many of the defendants, we were unable to tell from the complaints
exactly how the patent was allegedly being infringed but since
there were common plaintiffs and a single patent involved in all .
nine actions, it appeared that there was at least a high proba- :
bility that common questions of fact were involved in all nine :
actions. For these reasons, the Panel, on its own initiative,
issued an order to show cause why these actions should not be SL
* Although Judge Robson did not attend the hearing he has,
with the consent of all parties, participated in this decision.

Case MDL No. 36 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	2 of 5
® a
transferred to a single district for coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings. A plenary hearing was held in New York
City on February 27, 1970.
The responses to our show cause order unfortunately did not
fully clarify the situation but it seems clear that this is
rather typical multidistrict patent litigation in that the
plaintiffs have brought their actions against manufacturers,
wholesalers, and retailers of the alleged infringing device.
Here there is a single manufacturer (The Diffraction Company,
Inc.), two wholesalers or jobbers (Jeri, Inc. and Jewelarama,
Inc.) and six retailers.
Like the Butterfield Patent Cases, F. Supp.
@® (JPML, February 2, 1970), questions relating to the scope of the
patent and its validity are clearly common to all actions.
However as there is but a single manufacturer of the alleged
infringing device, questions relating to infringement are also
common to all actions. Although not as large as the Butterfield
Patent Litigation, supra, these nine actions meet the standards
for transfer of multidistrict litigation especially since each
one involves substantially identical questions of fact.
In the event of transfer, the parties 8uggest one of two
districts as the most appropriate transferee court: the Northern
District of Ohio and the District of Maryland. While it is true
that there are more actions pending in the Northern District of
® Ohio, they are all brought against retailers while the three

Case MDL No. 36 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	3 of 5
o 2
actions in Maryland are brought against the manufacturer and
the two wholesalers/jobbers. In addition, it appears that pre-
trial proceedings are somewhat more advanced in that district.
Under these circumstances, the District of Maryland is the most
appropriate district for transfer of these related actions under
section 1407.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions on the attached
Schedule A pending in the Northern District of Ohio and the
District of New Jersey are hereby transferred to the District
‘of Maryland under 28 U.S.C. §1407 and with the consent of that
court’, they are hereby assigned to the Honorable Edward S.
Northrop for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings
® with the actions already pending in that court
A motion to dismiss, filed by the S. S. Kresge Company,
the defendant in an action pending in the Northern District of
Ohio, is presently pending before that court. Transfer of that
action to the District of Maryland will be stayed; if the motion
is granted, there of course will be no transfer but if the motion
is denied, the stay will be immediately lifted and the action
transferred to the District of Maryland.
1/ A written consent executed by Chief Judge Roszel C. Thomsen
Po has been filed with the Clerk of the Panel.

Case MDL No. 36 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 4 of 5
® DOCKET NO. 36 SCHEDULE A
DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
Frank J. Kaehni & Marie Kaehni v. Edmund Civil Action
Scientific Co. & Norman W. Edmund No. 473-69
DISTRICT OF MARYLAND
Frank J. Kaehni & Marie Kaehni v. Civil Action
Jewelarama, Inc. No. 20691
Frank J. Kaehni & Marie Kaehni wv. Civil Action
Jeri, Inc. No. 20692
Frank J. Kaehni & Marie Kaehni v. Civil Action
Diffraction Company No. 20693
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
Frank J. Kaehni & Marie Kaehni v. The Civil Action
May Company No. C69 570
Frank J. Kaehni & Marie Kaehni v. W. T. Civil Action
® Grant Company No. C 69 571
Frank J. Kaehni & Marie Kaehni v. The Civil Action
Higbee Company No. C69 572
Frank J. Kaehni & Marie Kaehni v. S. S. Civil Action
Kresge Company No. C69 573
Frank J. Kaehni & Marie Kaehni v. F. W. Civil Action
Woolworth Company No. C69 574

Case MDL No. 36 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 5 of 5
: ) : JUDICIAL PANEL ON : EE
: MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION :
| | FILED EE
| THE JUDICIAL PANEL APR 1 U1970 | A
ON N - ol Lo - - oo
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION PATRICIA D. HOWARD. I
CLERK OF THE PANEL ¥eC
MULTIDISTRICT PATENT LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. 36 SET
INVOLVING THE KAEHNI PATENT ) . CrCen
| CONCURRING OPINION : Le
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM,
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH . i
’ S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL oo
. WEIGEL, J., Concurring
- In contrast to the Butterfield Patent Litigation, in
which I would have denied transfer, F. Supp. :
(JPML, February 2, 1970) (dissenting opinion), there is here
but a single device which is alleged to infringe the patent oo
and the liability of all the defendants turns on the determina- oo
tion as to that device. Therefore, the important questions in
this case are, in fact, common to all the parties and convenience, a
justice, and efficiency will be served by transfer under
Section 1407.