IN RE: Lehman Equipment Company Patent Infringement Litigation

Case MDL No. 141 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 1 of 2
i402 360 FEDERAL SUPPLEMENT : IN RR LEENAN BOUL
\ ME cerning the validity and enforce. 8b them. In light of toseIn re LEHMAN BOUIPMENT COM- of the Lehman patent on rotary ep. - the Loxas conte n o
: PANY PATENT INFRINGE: tors for cultivating crops. The pate a of proceedings mn the ar
MENT LITIGATION. assigned the pateat to Lehman {.., © 0 pending a final determir
Co Mo. 141. ment Company, which in turn _ ~ jitigation involving the man
Lo the Lilliston Corporation an excl, |-
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. }ieonse to manufacture and distr; © -hman and Lilliston conte
July 12, 1973. the product. Lehman and Lilliston ;, © ier of all actions ta a si
: the Panel for an order transferrin. iS BCCESSAYY in order to ave
LC . ye as .. actions to the Southern Distric =~: of discovery on the comn
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litl- Jo for coordinated or consoling © tent validity. It appears,gation did not transfer multidistrict ac yi) proceedings. All other partic. there are only two active
tions concerning validity and enfovee- pose transfer. We find no basic - .ing the Lehman patent, the
ability of patent. transfer under Section 1407 and ace. »y Manufacturing in Nov
Order accordingly. ingly deny the motion. ©. and the consolidated action
’ Courts €2712 in 1972, Lilliston and Lehman iw: rational Harvester pod Jo
Federal Civil Procedure ¢29 ed three infringement actions ir - iinois. In the North CuYop : . sapped 4 Kelley Manufacturing has
Multidistrict actions concerning va- Southern District of Texas again’; ° sive discovers the »
lidity and enforceability of patent were ternational Harvester Co. John ii tensive oa |
not transferred to Southern District of Co. and Kelley Manufacturing Co. i sue emt o po
Texas for coordinated or consolidated all three cases the Texas distribu mary judgment on ie; : . 1 ' - patent is void, invall
pretrial proceedings, where only actions each manufacturer was also named a: .
: remaining in the Southern District were defendant. Plaintiffs’ claims against *- | |
actions which were against local dis- ternational Harvester and John Bb. 3 )
tributors whom defendant manufactur- however, have been severed by the 7+ ‘ Sot
; ers had agreed	to indemnify and with court and transferred under 28 U~ © Lilliston Corp. and Ler
i respect to which stay of proceedings had § 1404(a) to- the Northern Distr © Brune Co.
been ordered pending final determina- Illinois, where pursuant to the *+ © Lilliston Corp. and Leh
I LUN UL MLIZALIUIL 11tvulving Lie satus rulzs of thot court, thoy hows hee aia Immplomome £0!
facturers, and where motion for summa- solidated both for pretrial proce=t = Lilliston Corp. and Lek
ry judgment by plaintiff in one of the and trial. Plaintiffs’ claims a: : Afg. Co., et al.
) only two active cases involving the patent Kelley Manufacturing were dismiz - i
Frat was ripe for decision. the Texas court for lack of venue 8 No:
i sequent to the dismissal, Kelley Ma~ Lilliston Corp. and Le}turing brought a declaratory ju rational Harvester Co.
NTTANT ANT action against Lilliston in the Fe : Lilliston Corp. and Le
OPINION AND ORDER District of North Carolina seekiry + 8 Deere Co.
Before ALFRED P. MURRAH*, lavation of invalidity and non-er’ x
"Chairman, and JOHN MINOR WIS- ability of the Lehman patent as © 7 Easter:
DOM, EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN a declaration of non-infringemts’’ = = Kelley Mfg. Co. v. Lillis
A. ROBSON, WILLIAM H. BECKER *, 4 pesult, the oniy actions ress B
~ JOSEPH 8. LORD, III, and STANLEY the Southern District of Texus :
A. WEIGEL, Judges of the Panel. three actions against the basis + -
en rior tors. And the defeudant mare
PER CURIAM. have apparently agreed lo ine” :
This. patent litigation consists of six disteibutors against any reo - E
actions in three different distvicts con- plaintiffs might ovenlunis
# Mthough Judges Murrah and Declor were reliting ta the Lelomn pt # “
not present at the hearing, they have, ehareed Lilliston with juin
with the consent of all parties, nartici- Welle patond en pena HETASE A -
- pated in tlds decision. ment,
- t. Welley bas alse asszerted allesation of uu ’
fair comgpatition and antitrust violations

Case MDL No. 141 Document 2 Filed 05/01/15 Page 2 of 2
“oh v H
C | |IW RE LEMIMAN EQUIPLIENT CO. PATENT INFRINGEMENT IIT. 1468 " :
Cite os 260 10. Supp. 1402 (1673) . ! :
ident, ai them. In light of these develop- foreeable. Since we ave advised that : E .SN rotary | -, the Texas court has ordered a that motion is ripe for decision, we are ; =
5 The pgs, of proceedings in the distributor not convinced that transfer of these ac- i i
© Lehmuay, oe . + pending a final determination of tions for cecordinated or consolidated pre- . ;nm oturp wigatien involving the manufuctur- trial preeedings at Lhis time will serve : BERLE] LEE > . . . H R . 3
DN an ey, the convenience of the parties and wit- ; ;	RY 1. JE ery. Wo. an . 5 . Pip H .
© and dis, yman and Lilliston contend that nesses or pi omote the just and efficient -
“ld Lillistay |, ier of all actions to a single dis- conduct of the litigation. Furthermore, v .
transferrin, is necessary in order to avoid dupli- if the North Carolina court grants the | ; :+ District gr 7, + 1 of discovery on the common issue Motion for summary judgment, holding : i 3	EIR ‘ ’ FN * ~ } PA mvali © 1¢9- : :
“onsolidateg tent validity. It appears, however, the Lehman patent invalid, the applica ;
“ther parties. there are only two active cases in. tion of the estoppel rule of Blonder- | : i :No basis + ing the Lehman patent, the action by Tongue Laboratories, Ine. v. University ! Cd
+407 and ace: wy Manufacturing in North Caro- of Illinois Foundation, 402 U.S. 313 : | : |- + and the consclidated action against (1971), could eliminate any need for i . i
Lehman jp, — mational Harvester and John Deere further discovery or trial concerning the | EE	actions in x. {ineis. In the North Carclina ac- validity of the Lehman patent. ’ oo : i -28S against: Kelley Manufacturing has complet- . i .- Cd yd }
0 1 st © tensive discovery on the patent va- It is therefore ordered that the motion : i	Yoo<onn po... St . LL . cof tions lic !
uying Co. : issue and has filed a motion for for transfer of the actions listed on the i : !- 3 ibutg. © “mary judgment on the ground that attached Schedule A be, and the same i : i02 ga. patente wala dneaual ooo oo poe Te ; fa
usu as * . } | : 4Ay against ' : : © od
1M... : © SCHEDULE A : SL Po
d Tey © : Southern District of Texas ; ] ss	A! 0 - . -	Sle 5 U.S ; qe : oo. . H 3
3 on i Ls vo Lilliston Corp. and Lehman Equipment Co. v. Allen Civil Action } Eg
: h ma Co Brune Co. No. 72-B-85 H f
0 be ¢ fnew Lilliston Corp. and Lehman Equipment Co. v. Weaks Civil Action j iSIV 3 IX z . 3
’ € os ; Martin Implement Co., Inc. No. 72-B-84 : J	: ‘oceedin,- 3 13 . o . . k i
oProceedis:, i Lilliston Corp. and Lehman Equipment Co. v. Kelley Civil Action : 1 :	nau an . ; 2 C5
nS ARETE Mfg. Co. et al. No. 72-B-113 : Dod
2 dismissed }: 1 : . i i“venue. Sub : i Northern District of Illinois oo . Po |	Nay of. F J .. CC . . . ’ h 4 .
siiey Manuf. f Lilliston Corp. and Lehman Equipment Co. v. Inter- Civil Action ; 3	ay 3 wif os : :
ry judgmes national Harvester Co. No. 73C686 SEEthe Easter : Lilliston Corp. and Lehman Equipment Co. v. John Civil Action So i 3
aly +. 2 . qui | H
seening : beg Deere Co. . No. 73C638 . t |	non-enfore 3 oo E Sr : p
al as well =o 3 Eastern District of North Carolina Ce ; |	“ment! Ac 2 Kelley Mfg. Co. v. Lilliston Corp. ST Civil Action ) a. 3
crnaining wf ER Co No. 1295 _ } | : i
nas are a k : } Ce Lo . } ) . : i
al disteiby 3 Co - Co oo ) i
nufactureis 2 . Co Co ; |Semnify fh i | Co ~ - : H
ery whi: bos : . . : . : i ’
FNS NE ; ) Lo I.) 3 : i
od 1
bi { 4
: . i |
3, - I
‘ { . ]
: ! |: . i : i