2012 WL 6554422
J.P.M.L.2012Background
- Droplets moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize six patent infringement actions in an MDL, seeking Northern District of Texas or Southern District of New York.
- Actions are: two in the Eastern District of Texas, three in the Northern District of California, and one in the Southern District of New York.
- Two patents at issue are U.S. 6,687,745 and U.S. 7,502,838, relating to delivering remotely stored applications over a network.
- Defendants oppose centralization, proposing either no transfer or a district other than the request and favoring informal coordination instead.
- The panel notes overlapping issues but nonidentical claim terms across actions and that proceedings are already coordinated in the Texas and California actions; informal coordination deemed practicable.
- Certain actions are not in their infancy (eBay in TX, E*Trade in NY with potentially dispositive briefing), which weakens the case for 1407 centralization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether to centralize actions under § 1407. | Droplets seeks MDL centralization to avoid duplication. | Defendants oppose centralization; prefer no transfer or limited coordination. | Denial of centralization. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Boehringer Ingelheim Pharm., Inc., Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) Litig., 763 F.Supp.2d 1377 (J.P.M.L.2011) (alternative coordination viable when multiple actions share counsel and common defendant)
- In re Plumbing Fixture Cases, 298 F.Supp. 484 (J.P.M.L.1968) (timing of transfer to permit timely decisions on issues without abrupt transfers)