Legal Opinion · Dissent

In re Embro Patent Infringement Litigation

United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation

Decided March 5, 1971No. 57Published

1Dissent

STANLEY A. WEIGEL, Judge of the Panel

(dissenting):

I respectfully dissent. As in In re Carrom Trademark Litigation, 322 F.Supp. 1016, (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1971) and In re Willingham Patent Litigation, 322 F.Supp. 1019 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1971), it seems to me that there are insufficient common questions of fact to justify § 1407 transfer in the light' of the troubles and inconveniences occasioned thereby. See In re “East of the Rockies” Concrete Pipe Antitrust Cases, 302 F.Supp. 244, 253-256 & n. 1 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1970) (concurring opinion); In re Butterfield Patent Litigation, 328 F.Supp. 513…

2Cases cited4 opinions

  1. In Re "East of the Rockies" Concrete Pipe Antitrust CasesUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1969
  2. In Re Multidistrict Litigation Involving Butterfield Patent InfringementUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1970
  3. In re Carrom Trademark LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1971
  4. In re Willingham PatentUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1971

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

Powered by the Exa API