In re Triax Company Patent Litigation

• Citation: 385 F. Supp. 590
• Decision Date: 26 November 1974
• Docket Number: No. 182.,182.
• Parties: In re the TRIAX COMPANY PATENT LITIGATION.
• Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

385 F. Supp. 590

In re the TRIAX COMPANY PATENT LITIGATION.

No. 182.

Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.

November 26, 1974.

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 Triax Company is the owner of four patents, which are intricate elements of an electrical control system utilized in warehouse equipment to automatically discharge and retrieve various storage items. It has commenced three patent infringement actions against three separate defendants: one in the Northern District of Illinois and two in the Northern District of Ohio. Plaintiff alleges that each defendant has infringed and is continuing to infringe at least two of its four patents by manufacturing, utilizing and/or selling automatic warehousing equipment that embodies these patents.

Triax moves the Panel for an order transferring the Illinois action to the Northern District of Ohio for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the two similar actions currently pending there. Transfer is opposed by defendants TRW, Inc. and Conco, Inc., but not by defendant Otis Elevator Co. We find that these actions involve common questions of fact and that their transfer to the Northern District of Ohio, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, will best serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the litigation.

Plaintiff contends that common factual questions exist because the validity of at least two of the four patents is involved in all of the actions. It urges that transfer under Section 1407 would prevent the danger of inconsistent pretrial rulings and eliminate duplicative discovery on the common issues.

Defendant Hartman Metal Fabricators, Inc.¹ argues that there are no common questions of fact in this litigation because the infringement issues are unique as to each defendant. While defendant Conco generally agrees with defendant Hartman's contention, Conco further avers that its warehousing system controls have been developed at considerable expense and involve proprietary information that should not be available to its competitors via coordinated or consolidated discovery proceedings.

An examination of the pleadings in this litigation reveals that, despite the unique infringement issues, significant common factual questions are raised regarding the validity of these patents. If pretrial proceedings in each action are neither coordinated nor consolidated, inconsistent pretrial rulings and unnecessary duplication of discovery might result. Moreover, defendant Conco's concern that its proprietary...