Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-md-02600/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-md-02600-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: PROTEGRITY CORPORATION AND 

PROTEGRITY USA, INC., PATENT LITIGATION MDL No. 2600

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Patentholders Protegrity Corp. and Protegrity USA, Inc., (collectively *

Protegrity) move under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to centralize pretrial proceedings in this patent litigation

in the District of Connecticut. Protegrity seeks centralization only for coordinated or consolidated

Markman hearings. This litigation consists of seventeen actions, pending in six districts, as listed

on Schedule A. 

1

The parties’ positions on Protegrity’s motion vary. Nine accused infringers oppose 2

centralization and, alternatively suggest that we select the Northern District of California as the

transferee district. Two accused infringers (TokenEx, LLC and AJB Software Design, Inc.) take no

position on centralization, but if the actions are centralized, they suggest selecting the Northern

District of California as the transferee district. Finally, three accused infringers (Trustwave

Holdings, Inc., PerspecSys USA, Inc., and Epicor Software Corp.) support centralization in either

the District of Connecticut or the Northern District of California, but only if the litigation is not

stayed pending potential Covered Business Patent review by the Patent Trial and Appeal Board.3

 Judge Lewis A. Kaplan did not participate in the decision of this matter. *

 The motion for centralization initially included twenty actions, but Protegrity requested one 1

action (the District of Connecticut Gazzang action) be removed as unrelated, and two other

actions (District of Connecticut Paymetric and TokenEx) were dismissed. Also, the parties have

notified the Panel of an additional related action pending in the District of Connecticut; this

action, and any other related action, is a potential tag-along action. See Panel Rules 1.1(h), 7.1

and 7.2.

 Dataguise, Inc.; Corduro, Inc.; IPS Group, Inc.; Shift4 Corp.; Skyhigh Networks, Inc.; 2

TransFirst LLC; Prime Factors, Inc.; Square, Inc.; and Informatica Corp.

 See Informatica Corp. v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2015-00010 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 14, 2014); 3

Informatica Corp. v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2015-00021 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 6, 2014); Square, Inc.

v. Protegrity Corp., CBM2014-00182 (P.T.A.B. Aug. 29, 2014); Square, Inc. v. Protegrity

Corp., CBM2015-00014 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 24, 2014); Epicor Software Corp. v. Protegrity Corp.,

CBM2015-00002 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 1, 2014); Epicor Software Corp. v. Protegrity Corp.,

CBM2015-00006 (P.T.A.B. Oct. 7, 2014); Epicor Software Corp. v. Protegrity Corp.,

Case 3:15-md-02600-JD Document 1 Filed 02/20/15 Page 1 of 4 Case MDL No. 2600 Document 74 Filed 02/06/15 Page 1 of 4
 - 2 -

At issue in this litigation are two patents owned by Protegrity: U.S. Patent Nos. 6,321,201

(’201 patent) and 8,402,281 (’281 patent). The patents relate to a method and apparatus for

protecting data within databases.

On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, we find that these seventeen actions

involve common questions of fact, and that centralization in the Northern District of California will

serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the

litigation. All actions involve factual questions about the alleged infringement, validity and

enforceability of the ‘201 and ‘281 patents. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery and

prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings (particularly on issues of staying the litigation during possible

Covered Business Patent review, claim construction and whether the patents involve unpatentable

subject matter), as well as conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel and the judiciary.

The accused infringers that oppose centralization offer several arguments against

centralization, all of which fail to convince us that centralization of this litigation is inappropriate. 

These parties argue that: centralization is premature because infringement contentions have not been

exchanged in certain actions, the actions involve different accused infringing products and thus

differing fact questions, and efficiency will not be served by centralization, given the pendency of

certain dispositive motions. While infringement contentions have not been exchanged in most

actions, Protegrity asserts that independent claims in the ‘201 patent (Claims 1 and 8) and ‘281

patent (Claims 1, 17, 33, and 47) will be the primary focus of the litigation. That the actions involve

differing accused infringing products has not been an impediment to centralization in past litigation 

involving common patents. Further, centralization will eliminate the potential for inconsistent 4

rulings on several pendingmotions to dismiss willful orindirect infringement allegations and the two

pending motions to dismiss based on unpatentable subject matter. 

The opponents of centralization also argue that the history of settlements of these actions

involving the Protegrity patents weighs in favor of denying centralization, citing our decision in In

re: Arrivalstar Patent Litigation, 802 F. Supp. 2d 1378. In re: ArrivalStaris readily distinguishable

from this litigation, as the patentholder opposed centralization and noted that it had “brought nearly

100 actions since it began bringing infringement suits in various districts across the country

approximately seven years ago, and none of the actions thus far appear to have required significant

CBM2015-00030 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 25, 2014).

 See In re: Bear Creek Pat. Litig., 858 F. Supp. 2d 1375, 1379-80 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (“The 4

Panel has often centralized litigation involving different products which allegedly infringe a

common patent or patents. . . while the facts surrounding infringement in this litigation may vary

from defendant to defendant, the actions will share substantial background questions of fact

concerning the numerous anticipated arguments regarding the validity and enforceability of the

‘722 patent and implicating factual issues concerning such matters as the technology underlying

the patent, prior art, priority (such as the contention that the patent was abandoned in 2003)

and/or claim construction.”). 

Case 3:15-md-02600-JD Document 1 Filed 02/20/15 Page 2 of 4 Case MDL No. 2600 Document 74 Filed 02/06/15 Page 2 of 4
 - 3 -

judicial attention.” Id. at 1379. Here, Protegrity spent years litigating against several defendants in

the District of Connecticut. These now-closed cases needed significant judicial attention to address

issues of claim construction and attacks on patent validity and required the appointment of a

technical advisor at substantial cost to the parties. One of the prior actions even proceeded through

the first week of trial. 

We deny Protegrity’s request to limit the centralized proceedings to claim construction. Our

typical approach has been to decline to dictate the particular manner or course that pretrial

proceedingsshould take. See, e.g.,In re:Cyclobenzaprine Hydrochloride Extended-Release Capsule

Pat. Litig., 657 F. Supp. 2d 1375, 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2009) (“Our decision to centralize these actions

in no way dictates or even suggests the particular manner or course of such proceedings; consistent

with our typical practice, we leave those determinations to the transferee judge.”). As Protegrity has

failed to provide us with a good reason to deviate from this approach, we dedicate the determination

of the exact structure of the MDL proceedings to the sound judgment of transferee judge. 

We are of the view that the Northern District of California is the most appropriate transferee

district for pretrial proceedings in this litigation. Several accused infringers are located in or near

this district. Further, the Northern District of California is a Patent Pilot Program Court that has

adopted local Patent Rules, and the district is highly familiar with complex technological patent

litigation. 

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside

the Northern District of California are transferred to the Northern District of California and, with the

consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable James Donato for coordinated or consolidated

pretrial proceedings.

 PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

 

 Sarah S. Vance

 Chair

Marjorie O. Rendell Charles R. Breyer

Ellen Segal Huvelle R. David Proctor

Catherine D. Perry

Case 3:15-md-02600-JD Document 1 Filed 02/20/15 Page 3 of 4 Case MDL No. 2600 Document 74 Filed 02/06/15 Page 3 of 4
IN RE: PROTEGRITY CORPORATION AND 

PROTEGRITY USA, INC., PATENT LITIGATION M D L N o . 2 600

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of California

PROTEGRITY CORP. v. INFORMATICA CORP., C.A. No. 3:14!02588

SKYHIGH NETWORKS, INC. v. PROTEGRITY CORP., C.A. No. 3:14!03151

SQUARE, INC. v. PROTEGRITY CORP., C.A. No. 3:14!03423

PROTEGRITY CORP. v. DATAGUISE, INC., C.A. No. 3:14!04283

Southern District of California

IPS GROUP, INC. v. PROTEGRITY CORP., C.A. No. 3:14!00075

District of Connecticut

PROTEGRITY CORP. v. PERSPECSYS USA, INC., C.A. No. 3:13!01383

PROTEGRITY CORP. v. PRIME FACTORS, INC., C.A. No. 3:13!01384

PROTEGRITY CORP. v. TRUSTWAVE HOLDINGS, INC., C.A. No. 3:13!01409

PROTEGRITY CORP. v. AJB SOFTWARE DESIGN, INC., C.A. No. 3:13!01484

PROTEGRITY CORP. v. EPICOR SOFTWARE CORP., C.A. No. 3:13!01781

PROTEGRITY CORP. v. SHIFT4 CORP., C.A. No. 3:13!01802

PROTEGRITY CORP., ET AL. v. CORDURO, INC., C.A. No. 3:14!01076

SHIFT4 CORPORATION v. PROTEGRITY CORP., C.A. No. 3:14!01427

Northern District of Oklahoma

TOKENEX, LLC v. PROTEGRITY CORP., C.A. No. 4:14!00445

District of Oregon

PRIME FACTORS, INC. v. PROTEGRITY USA, INC., C.A. No. 6:14!00476

Northern District of Texas

TRANSFIRST, LLC v. PROTEGRITY CORP., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14!02727

CORDURO, INC. v. PROTEGRITY CORP., ET AL., C.A. No. 3:14!02990

Case 3:15-md-02600-JD Document 1 Filed 02/20/15 Page 4 of 4 Case MDL No. 2600 Document 74 Filed 02/06/15 Page 4 of 4