IN RE: Surgical Stapling Devices Patent, Trademark and Antitrust Litigation

Case MDL No. 470 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 1 of 2
SUSISIAL PANCLBN Lo
HULTIRISTRICT LITIGATION | SE
JuL-9 15g 79% Ce
DOCKET NO. 470: PATRISIA D. HOWARD fro Co
CUERX 3F THE PANEL hs =
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
IN RE SURGICAL STAPLING DEVICES PATENT, TRADEMARK AND ANTITRUST
LITIGATION
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER ee
Presently before the Panel is a motion, pursuant to Co
28 U.S.C. §1407, for centralization of the three actions so
on the attached Schedule A in the Southern District of New ’
York.
on the basis of the papers filed,’ we find that Section
1407 transfer would neither serve the convenience of the Co
parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient ee
conduct of the litigation. Given the minimal number of a
actions before us, movants have failed to persuade us that oo Co
any common questions of fact involved in these actions are : ’
sufficiently complex, and that the accompanying discovery
will be so time-consuming, as to justify Section 1407 transfer. :
See In re Scotch Whiskey Antitrust Litigation, 299 F. Supp. p
543, 544 (J.P.M.L. 1969). We note that suitable alternatives
to transfer exist in order to minimize the possibility of Co
duplicative discovery and/or conflicting pretrial rulings.
See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) ’
Patent Litigation, 446 F. Supp. 242, 244 (J.P.M.L. 1978). : }
See also Manual for Complex Litigation, Parts I and II,
§§3.11 (rev. ed. 1977).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for transfer
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407 be, and the same hereby is, :
DENIED. ~ oo
FOR THE PANEL:
£4
Andrew A. Caffre
Chairman : .
1/ The parties to this docket waived their right to oral RECEE :
argument and therefore the question of transfer under 28 :
U.S.C. §1407 was submitted on the briefs. Rule 14, R.P.J.P.M.L.,
89 F.R.D. 273, 283-84 (1981).

- . Case MDL No. 470 Document 2 Filed 05/19/15 Page 2 of 2
SCHEDULE A
MDIL-470 —-- IN RE SURGICAL STAPLING DEVICES PATENT, TRADEMARK AND
® ANTITRUST LITIGATION
DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT
United States Surgical Corp. v. Hospital Products Civil Action
International Pty. Ltd., et al. No. B-81-42
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
Hospital Products International Pty. Ltd., Civil Action
et al. v. United States Surgical Corp. No. 81 Civ 748
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
United States Surgical Corp. v. Bryan Gregory Civil Action
Associates, Inc., et al. No. 81-325