Legal Opinion

In re Protegrity Corp. & Protegrity USA, Inc.

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Decided February 6, 2015No. MDL No. 2600Published

1Opinion of the Court

TRANSFER ORDER

SARAH S. VANCE, Chair.

Before the Panel:* Patentholders Pro-tegrity Corp. and Protegrity USA, Inc., (collectively Protegrity) move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this patent litigation in the District of Connecticut. Protegrity seeks centralization only for coordinated or consolidated Markman hearings. This litigation consists of seventeen actions, pending in six districts, as listed on Schedule A.1

The parties’ positions on Protegrity’s motion vary. Nine accused infringers 2 oppose centralization and, alternatively suggest that we select the Northern…

2Cases cited3 opinions

  1. In re Arrivalstar S.A. Fleet Management Systems Patent LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2011
  2. In re Bear Creek Technologies, Inc., ('722) Patent LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2012
  3. In Re Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule Patent LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API