Legal Opinion
In re Maxim Integrated Products, Inc.
United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Decided June 11, 2012No. MDL No. 2354PublishedCited by 18 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
CORRECTED TRANSFER ORDER
W. ROYAL FURGESON, JR., Acting Chairman.
Before the Panel: * Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, patentholder Maxim Integrated Products, Inc. (Maxim) seeks centralization in the Eastern District of Texas. This litigation currently consists of the fourteen actions, pending in five districts, listed on Schedule A.1
All responding parties oppose centralization. Various parties2 alternatively suggest selection of the Northern District of California as the transferee district. Declaratory judgement plaintiffs PNC and Vanguard3 and Eastern District of Texas defendant QVC, Inc.…
2Cases cited3 opinions
- In Re Kauffman Mutual Fund ActionsUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 1972
- In re Bear Creek Technologies, Inc., ('722) Patent LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2012
- In Re Rembrandt Technologies, Lp, Patent Lit.United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2007
3Cited by18 opinions
- In re Xarelto (Rivaroxaban) Products Liability LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2014
- In re Fluoroquinolone Products Liability LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2015
- Global Touch Solutions, LLC v. Toshiba Corp.District Court, E.D. Virginia · 2015
- In re Anheuser-Busch Beer Labeling Marketing & Sales Practices LitigationUnited States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2013
- In re Uber Techs., Inc., Data Sec. Breach Litig.United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation · 2018
13 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.