Stayed Patent Claims in One Case Do Not Remove Value of Consolidating Similar Cases

Posted on July 5, 2011 by R. David Donoghue

Pactiv Corp. v. Multisorb Techs., Inc., No. 10 C 461, Slip Op. (N.D. Ill. Feb. 15, 2011) (Leinenweber, Sen. J.).

Judge Leinenweber granted defendant Multisorb Technologies' Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 motion to consolidate a later-filed and related patent case before Judge Dow with the instant case. While the two cases asserted different patents, both cases accused Multisorb's FreshPax CR device for creating low-oxygen packaging. And several of the patents claimed the same priority. Additionally, the two complaints used virtually identical language. And the fact that plaintiff Pactiv's patent claims in the first suit were stayed pending reexam did not matter. Regardless of the timing of decisions, having two separate cases would still subject the parties to inconsistent rulings.

And transfer of the later-filed case was warranted to Local Rule 40.4. Both cases involved the same accused product. While the stay of Pactiv's patent claims in the first suit complicated matters, it did not mitigate the value of consolidating and reassigning the cases before a single judge.
 

Tags: , , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Trackbacks
  • Share Link

Same Patent Not Enough for Reassignment of Plaintiff's Suits to One Judge

Posted on July 15, 2009 by R. David Donoghue

Bajer Design & Marketing Inc. v. Ware Mfg. Inc., No. 09 C 1425, Min. Order (N.D. Ill. Jun 11, 2009) (Kendall, J.).

Judge Kendall denied plaintiff Bajer's motion to reassign its second filed patent infringement suit pending before Judge Zagel asserting the patent in suit to Judge Kendall pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42 and Local Rule 40.4. The cases met two of the four Rule 40.4(b) requirements for reassignment because both cases were pending in the Northern District and because both cases were at similar stages with defendants having just answered, such that reassignment would not slow progress of the first case. The Court also noted that a single Markman proceeding and set of claim constructions was a benefit of reassignment. But the potential for a uniform claim construction was outweighed by the fact that defendants' accused products and, therefore, noninfringement positions were significantly different. Based upon the differing noninfringement positions and other possible differences in the parties defenses, the Court held that reassignment would not achieve the required substantial savings of judicial time and effort.

Tags: , , , , , ,
  • Email This
  • Print
  • Trackbacks
  • Share Link