Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

, Case 1 :07-cv-0041 5-***-M PT - Document 31 Filed 11/21/2007 E Page 1 of 2
A oearnslao TRUE cow bq L/LS JU%')*g§E§,Tf,RgE%N
ATVESI MULTI DlSTR|CT L|TlGATlON
By Mecca Thompson at 1C»‘:45am, Nov 05, 2007 am, NOV 05, U
. . UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
res rss usmzc stares
. Juoucnar Passion 0Il FILED
nutncnsrsrcr uncanon MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION CLERKS OFFI CE
_ IN RE: PAPST LICENSING DIGITAL CAMERA . i ` A
` PATENT LITIGATION MDL No. 1880 . `
` ténitsd States District Court
it-er ting Clgoéumbia
TRANSFER ORDER > area -s/. H_;,:NG·T0N, cla
·‘ ` Deputy;-__ler p
Before the entire Panel: Common party Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG (Papst) has ‘
moved, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, to centralize this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. . 1
This litigation currently consists of tive actions listed on Schedule A, two actions in the District of _
District of Columbia and an action each in the District of Delaware, the Northern District of Illinois, ,
and District of New Jersey} No responding partyz opposes centralization; however, all responding
parties suggest centralization in the District of District of Columbia.
On the basis ofthe papers tiled and hearing session held, we find that these five actions `
involve common questions of fact, and that centralization under Section 1407 in the District of
District of Columbia will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just
and efficient conduct of the litigation. The actions involve common factual allegations regarding
digital cameras made by certain manufacturers, which Papst claims infringe two of its patents; the
S validity and enforceability of these patents is at issue in all five actions. Centralization under
Section 1407 will eliminate duplicative discovery, prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (particularly
on claim construction issues), and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the -
judiciary.
We conclude that the District of District of Columbia is an appropriate transferee forum in
this docket. The tirst—filed action (Casio) has been pending in the District of District of Columbia
for about a year, and discovery has progressed further in Casio than in any other action. In addition,
a transferee forum on the east coast such as the District of District of Columbia provides a
geographically convenient forum, inasmuch as several of the alleged infringers operate their
businesses from this region.
I This action was originally tiled in the Central District of Californiabut was transferred,
pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1404, to the District of New Jersey after the Panel’s hearing of this matter.
Z Casio, Inc.; Casio Computer Co., Ltd.; Fujifilm Corp.; Fujifilm USA, Inc.; Matsushita
Electric Industrial Co., Ltd.; Olympus Corp.; Olympus Imaging America, Inc.; Samsung Opto-
Electronics America, Inc.; Samsung Techwin Co.; and Victor Co. of Japan, Ltd.

, Case 1 :07-cv-0041 5-***-M PT Document 31 Filed 11/21 /2007 Page 2 of 2
-2 — @’7‘*/15
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on
Schedule A and pending outside the District of District of Columbia are transferred to the District
of District of Columbia and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Rosemary M.
Collyer for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings with the actions pending in that district
and listed on Schedule A.
PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION rk i
Q Joh Hey II
Chairman
D. Lowell Jensen J. Frederick Motz
Robert L. Miller, Jr. Kathryn H. Vratil
David R. Hansen Anthony J. Scirica

. Case 1 :07-cv—0041 5-***-M PT Document 31 -2 Filed 1 1/21 /2007 Page 1 of 1
@1-1116
1N RE: PAPST LICENSING DIGITAL CAMERA
PATENT LITIGATION MDL No. 1880
SCHEDULE A
District of District of Columbia
- Casio, Inc. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, C.A. No. 1:06-l751 -31*%
Fujitilm Corp., etal. v. Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG, C.A. No. 1:07-1118 31 K
District of Delaware
Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Olympus Corp., ct al., C.A. No. 1:07-415
Northem District of Illinois
Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Fujifilm Corp., etal., C.A. No. 1:07-3401
District of New Jersey
Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG v. Samsung Techwin Co., et al., C.A. No. 2:07-4940