OPINION AND ORDER
This litigаtion consists of five actions pending in three different federal districts — two each in the District of Kansas and the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and one in the Northern District of Ohio. All the actions involve the validity and alleged infringement of a single patent, No. 3,875,-607, the rights to which are held by FMC Corpоration. The patent relates to the construction of a gutter brush used in street sweeping machines, and to wear-replacement parts for this brush. FMC, through its Industrial Brush Division, manufactures street sweepers, and brushes and replacement brush parts for these sweepers. One of its products, which is covered by the patent in question, is a plastic block designed to support wear-replacement bristles. That bloсk, with bristles installed, is secured to the carrying plate of the machine for ultimate use. Jenkins Equipment Company is a manufacturer and seller of brushes and wear-replacement brush parts for street sweepers. It also produces a block, or bristle holder, which is sold with or without bristles to a number of customers. Those persons purchasing bare blocks install their own bristles for ultimate sale of completed brush units to the owners of sweepers. Two of Jenkins’ customers are Kennedy Van Brush Co. and Zarnoth Brush Co.
In 1975, FMC brought separate patent infringement actions аgainst Kennedy and Zarnoth in the District of Kansas and the Eastern District of Wisconsin, respectively. Each action alleges that the defendant infringed patent 3,875,607 by making, using and selling components for use in gutter brushes of street sweepers. FMC requests, inter alia, that the patent be adjudged valid and that bоth defendants be enjoined from using or contributing to the use of any invention covered by the patent. The claims in each action are virtually identical. Defendants have filed counterclaims challenging the validity of the patent.
FMC has since filed motions in these two actiоns to add Jenkins as a co-defendant; and has also filed two additional actions, one each in Kansas and Wisconsin, naming Jenkins and its salеs company, Sweepster Inc., as defendants. The second action in Wisconsin also includes Zarnoth as a defendant. Motions are pending in the four actions to dismiss Jenkins and Sweepster for lack of venue.
Early in May of 1976, Jenkins filed the Ohio action against FMC attacking the validity of the patent. Jenkins claims that its bristle holder and bristles do not infringe the claims of the patent in view of the limitations necessarily plaсed upon it in light of prior art. Jenkins further alleges that FMC has attempted to use enforcement of the patent and refusal of licensing agreements in an unlawful attempt to monopolize trade in the sale of gutter brush replacement parts, in violation of the federаl antitrust laws. Jenkins asks the court to (1) declare the patent void and invalid, (2) declare the patent not infringed by Jenkins or its customers, (3) declare the patent legally unenforceable because of misuse by the defendant, and (4) award treble damages.
These actions аre before the Panel pursuant to two motions for transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407: the first filed by Jenkins to transfer one of the Wisconsin and Kansas actions to the Northern District of Ohio for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the action pending there, and the seсond filed by FMC for transfer of all five actions to the District of Kansas. All parties agree on the propriety of transferring this litigation to a singlе district for pretrial proceedings, though they disagree on the appropriate transferee district.
We find that these actions invоlve common questions of fact and that their trans *1165 fer to the District of Kansas for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under Section 1407 will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient cоnduct of the litigation.
All parties recognize, and we agree, that this litigation involves common factual questions concerning the validity оf the patent held by FMC and that transfer is therefore necessary in order to eliminate duplication of discovery and prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings.
See In re Joseph F. Smith Patent Litigation,
Jenkins favors the Northern District of Ohio over the District of Kansas as the transferee forum beсause the action pending there contains broader issues than any other action involved in this litigation, and because that forum has jurisdiсtion over all parties to the actions, whereas Jenkins and Sweepster contest in personam jurisdiction and venue in the Kansas forum. 1 Jenkins further argues that this lack of jurisdiction and venue makes the District of Kansas an inappropriate transferee forum because that court would lack authority to enforce its rulings on discovery matters through the imposition of sanctions unless Jenkins and Sweepster voluntarily waive their objections to venue.
We find these arguments unpersuasive. Jenkins’ contentions regarding jurisdiction and venue are based on а total misconception of Section 1407. Transfers under Section 1407 are simply not encumbered by considerations of in personam jurisdiсtion and venue.
See In re Sugar Industry Antitrust Litigation,
An evaluation of all relevant factors leads us to the conclusion that the District of Kаnsas is a more appropriate transferee forum for this litigation. Discovery is more advanced in one of the Kansas actions than in any other action. And Judge Earl E. O’Connor, to whom the Kansas actions are assigned, has had an opportunity to become acquainted with this litigation, which puts him in the best position to supervise all the actions toward their most just and expeditious termination.
See In re Griseofulvin Antitrust Litigation,
IT ÍS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on the following Schedule A and pending in districts other than the District of Kansas be, and the same hereby are, transferred to the District of Kansas and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Earl E. O’Connor for coordinated or consolidated pretrial рroceedings pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407 with the actions pending in that district and listed on Schedule A.
SCHEDULE A
Eastern District of Wisconsin
FMC Corporation v. Zarnoth Brush Works, Inc.
Civil Action No. 75-C-669
FMC Corporation v. Zarnoth Brush Works, Inc., Jenkins Equipment Co., Inc. and Swеepster, Inc.
Civil Action No. 76-C-316
District of Kansas
FMC Corporation v. Kennedy Van Brush Mfg., Inc.
Civil Action No. 75-244-C2
FMC Corporation v. Jenkins Equipment Co., Sweepster, Inc.
Civil Action No. 76-94-C2
Northern District of Ohio
Jenkins Equipment Co. v. FMC Corporation
Civil Action No. C-76-439
Notes
. Note, however, that Jenkins stated in its papers submitted to the Panel that it has become the real party in interest in all thе actions through hold harmless agreements which it furnished Kennedy and Zarnoth, and that it is paying for and controlling the defense of their actions.