IN RE: Willingham Patent Litigation

Case MDL No. 60 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 1 of 4
cop PANT OH
wn Lda UTICATICH EECTE ED EF I APA
Ji20 1971 PRE RR
THE JUDICIAL PANEL Tani
ON PATI LT Lt) eT
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATIONL= "= r= . RE oo
IN RE WILLINGHAM PATENT LITIGATION) DOCKET NO. 60 on: \o®
OPINION AND ORDER | oo
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM, Lo E
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH . :
S. LORD, III, AND STANLEY A WEIGEL*, JUDGES OF THE PANEL - EE :
PER CURIAM oo
John R. Willingham has commenced three actions in two . SE Co
districts to recover for injuries alleged to result from the
failure of others to honor patents on certain of his inventions.
The principal defendants named by Willingham in all three
actions are Star Cutter Co., a tool manufacturer to which Lo
Willingham alleges he assigned his patents, and Ford Motor Co., :
a purchaser of allegedly infringing tools.
The first action was filed in 1967 in the Northern Division
of the Eastern District of Michigan and assigned to Judge Stephen . oo
J. Roth. It alleges claims of patent infringement, unfair
competition and breach of contractual agreements between Star
and Willingham. Summary judgment motions by Willingham and
Ford raising the question of Willingham's title to the patents or }
involved in this litigation are presently pending before Judge oo
Roth. The second action was filed by Willingham in the EE
* Although Judge Weigel did not attend this hearing he has,
with the consent of all parties, participated in this decision.

Case MDL No. 60 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	2 of 4
® a
Southern Division of the same District in 1970. It alleges
patent infringement and antitrust violations by twenty-one
representative defendants and a defendant class which
allegedly conspired to destroy Willingham's patents. This
action has also been assigned to Judge Roth. The third
action, recently commenced in the Southern District of Ohio,
is virtually identical in both allegations and parties to the
action just described.
Willingham has moved the Panel for transfer of the Ohio
action to the Eastern District of Michigan for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the two actions pending
there. As all parties make clear, a legal question common to
® all these actions is whether Willingham has title to the
| patents on which he sues. This question can only be resolved
by discovery of a common set of facts involving, among other
questions, the effect of Willingham's original contractual
agreement, Star's return of the patents and documents to
Willingham and Star's formal reassignment of the patents to
Willingham.l/
The common background of complex fact and the common
parties in all three actions make these cases appropriate for
1/ The repetitive papers filed with the Panel have been of
little help in identifying these common fact questions. The
Panel's concern is not with the merits of the title issue
but with the question of whether this common legal issue involves
( common fact questions sufficiently complex to require the use	9 of Section 1407. -

Case MDL No. 60 Document2 Filed 04/29/15 Page	3 of 4
® N
coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings even though
only three cases are involved and the factual complexity is not
so great as in In re IBM Antitrust Litigation, 302 F. Supp.
796 (JPML 1969). In re CBS Licensing Antitrust Litigation, ______
F. Supp. ____ (JPML, January 20, 1971) Here, as in the (CBS Licensing
cases, transfer of the Ohio action will put all the related
cases before a judge familiar with their problems. And no
inconvenience to the parties will result since substantially
all parties are already before Judge Roth in the other two
actions. Rather than delaying decision of the important
question of title, as some defendants fear, transfer will
® enable Judge Roth to settle that question promptly in allthree actions, advancing the just and efficient conduct of
the litigation as a whole.
We conclude that the requisite common facts are raised
by these three actions and that coordinated or consolidated
pretrial proceedings will advance their just and efficient
conduct and serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the case listed in the
attached Schedule A pending in the Southern District of Ohio
be, and the same hereby is, transferred to the Eastern District
of Michigan and, with the written consent of that court,
assigned to the Honorable Stephen J. Roth for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the other related cases
[ listed on Schedule A.

Case MDL No. 60 Document 2 Filed 04/29/15 Page 4 of 4
DOCKET NO. 60 SCHEDULE A
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN |
John R. Willingham v. Kneeland Industries Civil Action
~ No. 2835
John R. Willingham v. Ford Motor Co., et al. Civil Action
No. 35397
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF OHIO
John R. Willingham v. Ford Motor Co., et al. Civil Action
: No. 7689