In re Embro Patent Infringement Litigation
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
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
- In Re Multidistrict Litigation Involving Butterfield Patent InfringementUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1970
- In Re Multidistrict Litigation Involving Frost PatentUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1970
- In re Carrom Trademark LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1971
- In Re Multidistrict Patent Litigation Involving the Kaehni PatentUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1970
- In re Willingham PatentUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1971
4Cited by1 opinion
- In re Camco Patent Infringement LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1972