IN RE: Mandell Patent Litigation

Case MDL No. 600 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 1 of 2
EE TEITI
FELIS TUT ATI
nue
C : DOCKET NO. 600 FSC 21 1984
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION, ... . | Dh,	[aR LH TIRAN © FE MOSER|
IN RE MANDELL PATENT LITIGATION CLERK OF THE PANEL
a -
TRANSFER ORDER
This litigation consists of four actions, one each pending in the Northern District of
Illinois, the Central District of California, the District of Connecticut and the Northern
District of Texas. Presently before the Panel is a motion by Oak Industries, Inc. (Oak),
the plaintiff in all actions, to centralize the actions in this litigation in the Northern
District of Illinofs, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, for coordinated or consolidated pre-trial proceedings.~ No responding party opposes transfer; the sole dispute among the
parties before the Panel concerns selection of either the Northern District of Illinois or
the Central District of California as the preferable transferee forum.
On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing held, the Panel finds that these
actions involve common questions of fact and that centralization under 28 U.S.C. §1407 in
the Central District of California will best serve the convenience of the parties and
witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation. These common
factual questions arise because all actions raise the issue of the validity and enforce-
ability of United States Letters Patent No. 3,333,198, commonly referred to as the Mandell
patent. Centralization under Section 1407 is thus necessary in order to eliminate dup-
licative discovery, prevent Inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of
@- parties, their counsel and the judiclary.
Although either the Northern District of Illinois or the Central District of
California could be considered an appropriate transferee district for this litigation, we
conclude that the Central District of California is preferable because 1) Oak, the
exclusive licensee of the Mandell patent and the plaintiff in all actions, has its
principal place of business in southern California; 2) International Telemeter Corpora-
tion, the owner of the Mandell patent, had its principal place of business in southern
California during the 1960's when the Mandell patent was developed and issued;
3) witnesses and documents pertaining to another patent (the '537 patent) and the issue of
"prior art" will be found in southern California; and U4) defendants in three of four
actions favor transfer to the Central District of California.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407, the actions listed on the
attached Schedule A and pending in districts other than the Central District of California
be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the Central District of California and, with
the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Edward Rafeedie for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending in that district and listed on
Schedule A.
FOR THE PANEL:
Cor triea. Cap	Andrew A. Caffrey
C Chairman
1/ The motion for Section 1407 transfer in this docket included one additional action --
: Oak Industries, Inc. v. C-Cor Electronics, Inc., M.D. Pennsylvania, C.A. No. 84-0483 —-
that has been settled and dismissed.

Case MDL No. 600 Document 2 Filed 06/01/15 Page 2 of 2
Schedule A o
MDL-600 -- In re Mandell Patent Litigation _
: eentral District of California i
Oak Industries, Inc. v. Scientific Atlanta, Inc., C.A. No. 84-2404-ER(Px)
District of Connecticut ]
Oak Industries, Inc. v. GTE Communications Products Corp., C.A. No. B84-238WWE
Northern District of Texas
Gek Industries, Inc. v. Tocom, Inc., C.A. No. 3-84-0542H
Northern District of Illinois
Oak Industries, Inc. v. Zenith Radio Corp., C.A. No. 84-C-3045
| @
|