Legal Opinion

In re Embro Patent Infringement Litigation

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Decided March 5, 1971No. 57PublishedCited by 1 opinion

1Opinion of the Court

*508OPINION AND ORDER

2Per curiam

On September 30, 1970, we directed the parties in the six actions 1 listed on Schedule A to show cause why those actions should not be transferred to a single district for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1407.2 The common party, Embro Company, Inc.3 and three of the adverse parties have responded to the show cause order but none took a positive position with regard to the advisability of transfer under § 1407 nor did they provide much insight as to the nature of the litigation, the existence of common questions of fact, the status of…

3Cases cited5 opinions

  1. In Re Multidistrict Litigation Involving Butterfield Patent InfringementUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1970
  2. In Re Multidistrict Litigation Involving Frost PatentUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1970
  3. In re Carrom Trademark LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1971
  4. In Re Multidistrict Patent Litigation Involving the Kaehni PatentUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1970
  5. In re Willingham PatentUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1971

4Cited by1 opinion

  1. In re Camco Patent Infringement LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1972

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

Powered by the Exa API