Free Order - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

i Case 1 :07imd-0184 GI\/IS Document 1-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Pa_HFDpCm‘L4PANEL ON
{CERTIFIED TRUECOPY Mutrtoisrmor rms/irnou
A ° ` A , ( JUN t R 2007
. i - JUN .2 0 2007 _ T mem
V » ` ‘ CLEFlK'S OFFICE
A t` II
J!W’P£$!¤~~ · ' LEASED FOR PUBLICA T10N . 3 L E?
MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION DOCKET NO 1848 Oki md I it °
BEFORE THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICTLITIGA TION
IN RE REMBRANDT TECHNOLOGIES, LP, PA T EN T LI T IGA T ION
BEFORE WM T ERRELL HODGES, CHAIR1WAN,*D. LO WELL JENSEM .L
FREDERICK MOT Z ROBERT L. MILLER, JR., KATHR YN H VRA TIL
DA VID R. HANSEN AND AN T HON Y I SCIRI CA, JUDGES OF THE PANEL
TRANSFER ORDER
This litigation presently consists ofthe fifteen actions listed on Schedule A and pending in three I
districts as follows: seven actions in the Eastern District of Texas, six actions in the District of .
Delaware, and two actions in the Southern District of New York. Before the Panel is a motion, brought
by CoxCom, Inc., pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, seeking centralization of all actions in the District of
Delaware. The owner ofthe patents, Rembrandt Technologies, LP (Rembrandt), opposes centralization
but, alternatively, suggests transfer to the Eastern District of Texas, if the Panel deems centralization
appropriate. All other responding defendants expressing a position regarding centralization‘ support
centralization in the District of Delaware. Two groups of defendants propose alternative transferee fora
— the Southern District of New Yorkz or the Eastern District of Pennsylvania,} should the Panel decide
against centralization in the District of Delaware.
On the basis ofthe papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that the actions in this
litigation involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the District of Delaware will
* Judge Miller took no part in the decision of this matter.
‘ The following debtor defendants expressed no opinion regarding whether the actions should be centralized:
Adelphia Communications Corp.; Century-TCI California, LP; Century~TCI Califomia Communications,
LP; Century-TCI Distribution Co., LLC; Century-TCI Holdings, LLC; Pamassos, LP; Pamassos
Communications, LP; Parnassos Distribution Co. I, LLC; Pamassos Distribution Co. H, LLC; Parnassos
Holdings, LLC; and Western NY Cablevision, LP (collectively the Adelphia defendants).
Nevertheless, if the Panel decides that centralization is appropriate, the Adelphia defendants support transfer
to the District of Delaware as their primary preference, as do the following defendants: Cablevision Systems
Corp. and CSC Holdings, Inc. (collectively Cablevision); Charter Communications, Inc., and Charter
Communications Operating, LLC; Comcast Corp., Comcast Communications, LLP, and Comcast of Plano,
LP; Sharp Corp. and Sharp Electronics Corp.; and ABC, Inc., CBS Corp., NBC Universal, Inc., Fox
Broadcasting Co., and Fox Entertainment Group, Inc.
2 Altematively supporting transfer to the Southern District of New York are I m f 5 0 " L```` I
Cablevision. V,,_ , ( A I _;_;,_ ;_ ,; __ __ A
3 Cablevision alternatively supports transfer to the Eastern District of Pennsylva ia. [
;‘ :::; .1
, .....

Case 1 :07-md-01848—GlV|S Document 1-2 Filed 06/21/ 007 »P
· . Yam
- 2 — l
serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the ju . and _
litigation. The nine patents involved in these actions relate to the provis . _ `
related services using certain cable modems and equipment and the receipt and transmission of certain
digital broadcast signals. Each of the fifteen MDL-1848 actions involves allegations of infringement
and/or invalidity of one or more of the patents; specifically, each action involves allegations that
compliance with one of two technical standards relating to cable high-speed internet technology and
digital broadcasting — respectively, the Data-Over-Cable Service Interface Specifications and the
Advanced Television Systems Committee Digital Television Standard — infringes certain Rembrandt
patents. All actions can thus be expected to share factual questions concerning such matters as the
technology underlying the patents, prior art, claim construction and/ or issues of infringement involving
the patents. Centralization under Section 1407 is necessary in order to eliminate duplicative discovery,
prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings, and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the
judiciary.
In opposing centralization, Rembrandt variously argues that inconsistent rulings are unlikely to
arise in the actions, unique questions of fact relating to each patent will predominate over common
factual questions among these actions, and that cooperation among the parties is a preferable alternative
to centralization. We are not persuaded by these arguments. Transfer under Section 1407 does not
require a complete identity or even a majority of common factual or legal issues as a prerequisite to
transfer. Centralization will permit all actions to proceed before a single transferee judge who can
structure pretrial proceedings in a streamlined manner to consider all parties’ legitimate discovery needs,
while ensuring that common parties and witnesses are not subjected to duplicative discovery demands.
The transferee court will be able to fonnulate a pretrial program that allows any unique discovery in
these actions to proceed concurrently on separate tracks with discovery on common issues, In re Joseph
F. Smith Patent Litigation, 407 F.Supp. 1403, 1404 (J .P.M.L. 1976). The Panel is aware that
proceedings in the first-filed MDL-1848 action (Comacastl) are somewhat further advanced than those
in the other actions. It may well be that Comcast I , or other MDL-1848 actions, may be ready for trial
in advance of the remaining MDL-1848 actions. If such is the case, nothing in the nature of Section
1407 centralization will impede the transferee court, whenever it deems appropriate, from
recommending Section 1407 remand. See Rule 7.6, R.P.J.P.M.L., 199 F.R.D. 425, 436-38 (2001); In
re Acacia Media Technologies Corp. Patent Litigation, 360 F.Supp.2d 1337 (I.P.M.L. 2005).
We are persuaded that this litigation should be centralized in the District of Delaware. By
centralizing this litigation before Judge Gregory M. Sleet, who presides over all Delaware actions, we
are assigning this litigation to a seasoned j urist in a readily accessible district with the capacity to handle
this litigation.

_ Case"1:07-md-01848—Gl\/IS Document 1-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 3 of 4
~ . H,
, _ 3 _
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, the actions listed on
Schedule A and pending outside the District of Delaware are transferred to the District of Delaware and,
with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Gregory M. Sleet for coordinated or
consolidated pretrial proceedings.
FOR THE PANEL:
A/`§.9,~.»~z»o¢·{_g€»lv·•A.9t4,
Wm. Terrell Hodges
Chairman

`Q · Case 1 :07-md-01848—GIV|S Document 1-2 Filed 06/21/2007 Page 4 of 4
ea · `L
_ SCHEDULE A
MDL-1848 —- In re Rembrandt Technologies, LP, Patent Litigation
District of Delaware
Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Cablevision Systems Corp., et al., C.A. No. 1:06-635
Coxcom, Inc. v. Rembrandt Technologies, LP, C.A. No. 1:06-721
- Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. CBS Corp., C.A. No. 1:06-727
Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. NBC Universal, Inc., C.A. N0. 1:06-729
Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. ABC, Inc., C.A. No. 1:06-730
Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Fox Entertainment Group, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:06-731
Southern District of New York
Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Adehyhia Communications Corp., et al.,
Bky. Advy. No. 1:06-1739
Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Adelphia Communications Corp., C.A. N0. 1:07-214
Eastern District of Texas ’
Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Comcast Corp., et al., C.A. N0. 2:05-443
Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Sharp Corp., et al., C.A. No. 2:06-47
Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Charter Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. N0. 2:06-223
Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., C.A. N0. 2:06-224
Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., C.A. No. 2:06-369
Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Comcast Corp., et al., C.A. No. 2:06-506
Rembrandt Technologies, LP v. Charter Communications, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:06-507
ciattrtrttiznz E 1- 2*/ T
AS A TRUE COPY:
. ATTEST:
PETER T. DALLEO. CLERK
BY -[KQ/j`;1\ @3 <_x..zvC--

Deputy Clerk