IN RE: Camco Patent Infringement Litigation

oo Case MDL No. 101 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 4
0 SDA .
HUF SE
“RIPEN g, Ce
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ‘ Lea, ETRE SSON J hl Lo 5
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION ~~ , Uno, [9 CARESS SOCL elise Co Sa :
SE CF Fi fin, , N po . . . i
IN RE CAMCO PATENT INFRINGEMENT ) HERR Hl Co
LITIGATION ) DOCKET NO. 10% -
: 29%OPINION AND ORDER :
BEFORE ALFRED P. MURRAH, CHAIRMAN, AND JOHN MINOR WISDOM¥, oe DEE
EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER*, JOSEPH S. Cire
LORD, III, AND STANLEY A. WEIGEL, JUDGES OF THE PANEL ET : oC
PER CURIAM
Plaintiffs, Camco Inc., Perry R. Bass, Inc. and Sid W. . }
Richardson Foundation, Inc., filed an action in the Western CT
District of Louisiana and another in the Northern District of Tn
Texas alleging infringement of patents held by them. Defend- Co B
ants in the Louisiana action counterclaimed to have the patents
in issue declared invalid and not infringed and also alleged oo
violations of the antitrust laws.
Plaintiffs, have moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, for -
transfer of the Louisiana action to the Northern District of
Texas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings -
with respect to all matters involving the validity of any claim : a. CL
of any patent asserted in either action. Neither the Louisiana oo :
nor the Texas defendants oppose transfer of the patent claims. IE
* Although Judges Wisdom and Becker were not present at the
hearing, they have, with the consent of all parties, partici- _
pated in this decision. : aE Sl

Case MDL No. 101 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	2 of 4
° -| However, the Texas defendants have also moved to have the
Louisiana defendants' antitrust counterclaim transferred for
pretrial oroceedings.> Plaintiffs appeared at the hearing and
did not object to transfer for all pretrial discovery. We find
that transfer	of the Louisiana action	to the Northern District
of Texas will be for the convenience of the parties and witnesses
and will promote the just and efficient conduct	of the litiga-
tion.
Plaintiffs favor transfer to Texas because all issues of
patent validity raised in the Louisiana action are also raised
in the Texas action, although the converse may not be true.
® It is clear that the issues of patent validity raised in these
C two actions present common questions of fact and that consoli-
dation for pretrial proceedings will avoid duplicative discovery
and prevent inconsistent rulings. Cf. In re Embro Patent
Infringement Litigation, 328 F. Supp. 507 (J.P.M.L. 1971); In
‘re Butterfield Patent Infringement Litigation, 328 F. Supp.
513 (J.P.M.L. 1970). We agree that the Northern District of
‘Texas is the most appropriate transferee district.
We also believe it best to place all aspects of the liti- |
gation, the antitrust issues as well as the validity of the
patents, before the transferee judge, who can best decide
T/ TheLouisiana and Texas defendants moved to postpone |
[1] the hearing in order to allow them time to file papers con=cerning transfer of the antitrust claim and to serve an
( additional party so it would be included in the transfer. We	h deny the motion because further briefing of this issue is
unnecessary and because the addition of a party can be accom-
plished either before	or after transfer.

Case MDL No. 101 Document2 Filed 05/01/15 Page	3 of 4
° >on the most expeditious manner of preparing the cases for trial. :
See In re Yarn Processing Patent Validity Litigation, F. Supp.
(J.P.M.L. March 22, 1972); In re Carrom Trademark Litigation, |
322 F. Supp. 1016 (J.P.M.L. 1971). :
IT Is THEREFORE ORDERED that the action listed on the
attached Schedule A pending in the Western District of Louisiana
be, and the same hereby is, transferred to the Northern District
of Texas and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the
Honorable Leo Brewster for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407.
o
® | :
®

Case MDL No. 101 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 4 of 4
SCHEDULE A DOCKET NO. 101
WESTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA
camco Inc., et al. v. Production Civil Action
Specialties, Inc., et al. : No. 15,620
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
Camco Inc., et al. v. Teledyne, Civil Action
Inc., et al. No. 4-1085