278 F. Supp. 3d 1379
J.P.M.L.2017Background
- Blue Spike, LLC moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize nine pending patent actions (originally 14; five were dismissed) involving alleged infringement of 34 patents.
- Actions are pending in four districts (mostly Eastern District of Texas) and name a variety of defendants whose accused products differ widely (TVs, tablets, routers, watermarking software, virtual currency, smartphones, streaming devices, etc.).
- The 34 patents were grouped by Blue Spike into categories (secure server, trusted transaction, watermarking, packet transfer, open access, ASLR, product key), but overlap across cases is uneven. Some patents appear in many cases; others in few or only one.
- Blue Spike has an active litigation history (33 suits since 2016) but most were dismissed quickly; only nine remain and only three patents have had claim construction (and those cases are closed).
- Defendants opposed centralization, proposed Northern or Central District of California if centralization were ordered, and represented they would cooperate (e.g., joint deposition of inventor Scott Moskowitz) to avoid duplicative discovery.
- The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) concluded the commonality among cases is insufficient and alternative coordination measures can address duplication, so it denied transfer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 1407 centralization is warranted | Centralization will serve convenience and efficiency given shared inventor and overlapping patents | Centralization unnecessary; parties will cooperate and courts can manage overlap without MDL | Denied — insufficient commonality and centralization would not materially further convenience or efficiency |
| Whether common facts/patents justify MDL | Shared allegation of infringement of 34 patents and common inventor supports centralization | Accused products and asserted patents vary widely; overlap is limited and uneven | Denied — factual and patent overlap is not substantial enough to justify MDL |
| Appropriate transferee forum if centralization ordered | (Implicit) Eastern District of Texas or plaintiff-chosen forum | Northern or Central District of California preferred by defendants | Not reached (no centralization); defendants’ proposals noted but irrelevant after denial |
| Whether alternative coordination suffices | Centralization necessary to avoid duplication | Parties can coordinate (joint depositions, sequencing claim construction); manual/precedent remedies available | Court found alternatives adequate and ordered no MDL |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Charles R. Bobo Patent Litig., 829 F. Supp. 2d 1374 (J.P.M.L. 2011) (assessing sufficiency of commonality for centralization)
- In re Eli Lilly & Co. (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Pat. Litig., 446 F. Supp. 242 (J.P.M.L. 1978) (describing alternatives to formal centralization)
- In re ArrivalStar Pat. Litig., 802 F. Supp. 2d 1378 (J.P.M.L. 2011) (denying centralization where litigation history suggested limited judicial attention required)
- In re Genetic Techs. Ltd. (’179) Pat. Litig., 883 F. Supp. 2d 1337 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (denying centralization when many cases settled or were dismissed quickly)
- In re Brandywine Comms. Techs., LLC Pat. Litig., 959 F. Supp. 2d 1377 (J.P.M.L. 2013) (denying centralization where actions were resolving without MDL)