IN RE: Mathematical Applications Group, Inc., (MAGI) Patent Litigation

: Case MDL No. 608 Document2 Filed 06/01/15 Page	1 of 3
oo JUDICIAL PANEL OH
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
FILED
® DOCKET NO. 608 0CT -5 184
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDIST T LITPA D. HOWARD
; M TRICT LAIR THE PANEL
IN RE MATHEMATICAL APPLICATIONS GROUP, INC., (MAGI) PATENT LITIGATION
. ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
This litigation presently consists of three actions pending, re-
spectively, in the District of Minnesota, the District of New Jersey,and the Southern District of New York.- Before the Panel is a
motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, by Mathematical Applications
Group, Inc., (MAGI), which is the plaintiff in two actions and the
defendant in the third, for centralization of all actions in the
Southern District of New York for coordinated or consolidated pretrial
proceedings. The remaining three parties to this docket oppose
transfer. In the event that the Panel nevertheless concludes that
centralization 1s appropriate in this docket, then these parties favor
selection of the District of Minnesota as transferee forum.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panel
finds that Section 1407 transfer would neither serve the convenience
of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient con- Le
duct of the litigation. Given the minimal number of actions before
us, movant has failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact
@ in these actions are sufficiently complex, and that the ac-	companying discovery will be so time-consuming, as to justify Section
E 1407 transfer. See In re Scotch Whiskey Antitrust Litigation, 299 F.
Supp. 543, S44 (J.P.M.L. 1969). Furthermore, we point out that
suitable alternatives to transfer exist in order to minimize the pos-
sibility of duplicative discovery and/or conflicting pretrial rulings,
especially where, as here, the counsel are the same in each action.
See, e.g., In re E11 Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent
Litigation, 0446 F.Supp. LEN 20 (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.
FOR THE PANEL:
Cotonndrew A. Caffr
Chairman
1/ A fourth action, entitled Mathematical Applications Group, Inc. v.
Autographix, Inc., S.D. New York, C.A. No. 83 Civ. 1921, was original-
y included on the schedule of actlons accompanying the motion in this
ocket. This action was dismissed on July 20, 1984, pursuant to a
consent judgment, and, accordingly, the question of transfer with
respect to this action is now moot.

: Case MDL No. 608 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 3
SCHEDULE A
MDL-608 -- In re Mathematical Applications Group, Inc. (MAGI) Patent
© Litigation
District of Minnesota
Dicomed Corp. v. Mathematical Applications Group, Inc., C.A. No.
3-84-6065
District of New Jersey
Mathematical Applications Grou Inc. v. ACCHM Communicetion
Industries, Inc., C.A. lo. Boe D
Southern District of New York
Mathematical Applications Grou Ine. ve. B C Communications,
Inc., C.A. No. B3-Civ-14016
Re “\

Case MDL No. 608 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 30f3
t CO JUDICIAL PANEL 8H
- Ll HELTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
‘ SE FILED
C | | y FEB -7 1965DOCKET NO. 608 i PATRICIA B. ROW ARS
‘ CLERK GF THE PAHEL
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION ~ Ha
IN RE MATHEMATICAL APPLICATIONS GROUP, INC., (MAGI) PATENT LITIGATION
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION * )
On October 5, 1984, the Panel denied a motion of Mathematical
Applications Group, Inc., (MAGI) to centralize in the Southern
District of New York three actions pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. In re
Mathematical Applications Grou Inc. (MAGI) Patent Litigation,
MDL-608 (J.P.M.L., filed Oct. 5, 198%) (unpublished order).
~ Presently before the Panel is a motion brought by MAGI for the
Panel to reconsider its decision to deny Section 1407 transfer in this
"docket and to centralize the actions in the Southern District of New
York. The Panel has fully considered this motion on the basis of the
papers submitted,l/ and the Panel finds that no new grounds have been
presented to justify reconsideration of its order denying
centralization of the actions in this docket.
oo IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion for reconsideration be,
: and the same hereby is, DENIED. :
C FOR THE PANEL:
Andrew A. CsChairman
¥ Judge Sam C. Pointer, Jr., took no part in the decision of this
matter.
1/ The Panel has deemed this motion submitted on the basis of the
papers filed. See Rule 13(b), R.P.J.P.M.L., 89 F.R.D. 273, 282