In re IBM Antitrust Litigation

• Decision Date: 19 April 1972
• Docket Number: No. 18.,18.
• Citation: 342 F. Supp. 200
• 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.
• Court: Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

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 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 substitution of peripheral equipment for IBM peripheral devices. Telex claimed that the majority of the discovery it needs has already been completed in Minnesota and that with some additional discovery it can be ready for an early trial. Subsequent to the Panel hearing Telex filed an additional action against IBM in the Northern District of Oklahoma seeking a temporary restraining order and a preliminary injunction to halt and enjoin new marketing and leasing practices instituted by IBM subsequent to the filing of the first Telex action. Telex now withdraws its support and requests the Panel to deny transfer of its action to Minnesota.⁴

Control Data opposes the transfer of the Telex action to Minnesota. It strongly urges that transfer will result in the delay of its case and impede its attempt to get to trial in early 1973. It argues that the issues of its case are more complex and much broader than those in Telex and that transfer will force Judge Neville to adopt and supervise an independent discovery program custom tailored to fit Telex's needs. Control Data also asserts that the Telex action is analogous to the Data Research action, which the Panel earlier declined to transfer,⁵ and urges that our reasoning in that decision is equally applicable to the Telex situation.

We cannot accept Control Data's assertion that our earlier decision regarding Data Research is controlling. The relevant market alleged in the Data Research case was limited to the narrow market for card...