In re IBM Antitrust Litigation, 18.

• Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
• Citation: 342 F. Supp. 200
• Docket Number: No. 18.,18.
• Parties: In re IBM ANTITRUST LITIGATION. The Telex Corp., et al. v. International Business Machines, Inc., N. D. Oklahoma, Civil Action No. 72 C 18.
• Decision Date: 19 April 1972

342 F. Supp. 200

In re IBM ANTITRUST LITIGATION.
The Telex Corp., et al. v. International Business Machines, Inc., N. D. Oklahoma, Civil Action No. 72 C 18.

No. 18.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

April 19, 1972.

Before ALFRED P. MURRAH, Chairman, and JOHN MINOR WISDOM, EDWARD WEINFELD, EDWIN A. ROBSON^*, WILLIAM H. BECKER, JOSEPH S. LORD III^*, and STANLEY A. WEIGEL, Judges of the Panel.

OPINION AND ORDER

PER CURIAM.

The Telex Corporation brought this suit against IBM in the Northern District of Oklahoma. The Panel issued an order to show cause why this action should not be transferred to the District of Minnesota and assigned to the Honorable Philip Neville for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with two other anti-trust actions against IBM. IBM and Greyhound Computer Corporation favor transfer; Telex and Control Data Corporation are opposed. On the basis of the papers submitted by the parties and the hearing held, we hold that transfer of the Telex action will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and will promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.

Originally five cases were consolidated with the Control Data case in the District of Minnesota for coordinated pretrial proceedings before Judge Neville.¹ Four of those cases were settled and dismissed; only the Greyhound and Control

342 F. Supp. 201

Data cases remain before the court. And we are informed that Judge Neville is considering the transfer of the Greyhound action at the conclusion of pretrial proceedings, which are near completion, to the District of Arizona for trial in May of this year

In its complaint against IBM, Telex alleges violations of Sections 1 and 2 of the Sherman Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1 and 2) and Section 3 of the Clayton Act (15 U. S.C. § 14). Telex is engaged in manufacturing and selling or leasing peripheral devices² to be attached to an IBM central processing unit.³ Thus Telex affords purchasers of an IBM central processing unit the opportunity to obtain peripheral devices for attachment to their IBM central processor from someone other than IBM. Telex claims that its devices possess functional characteristics identical to the IBM peripheral devices, but utilize superior technology and provide superior performance in processing electronic data. Telex alleges that certain acts and practices of IBM violate the anti-trust laws and have deprived Telex of the opportunity to compete effectively in the market of supplying peripheral devices specifically designed for attachment to an IBM central processing unit.

IBM favors transfer of the Telex case because it feels that transfer will expedite the pretrial proceedings of the action and will assure the opportunity for an early trial. IBM argues that all parties will benefit from the coordinated discovery program relating to IBM's defense on the relevant market issues, which it alleges is, to a great extent, the same in both the Telex and Control Data actions. Greyhound does not object to the consolidation of Telex for pretrial proceedings.

At the Panel hearing Telex supported transfer of its action for participation in the coordinated discovery program in Minnesota. It argued that, notwithstanding the fact that the relevant market alleged in its complaint is more limited than that alleged in the Control Data suit, common questions of fact are presented because the Control Data suit also involves the...