Case Name: In re SOLAIA TECHNOLOGY LLC PATENT & ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Court: United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 2004-12-06
Citations: 346 F. Supp. 2d 1373
Docket Number: No. MDL 1645
Parties: In re SOLAIA TECHNOLOGY LLC PATENT & ANTITRUST LITIGATION
Judges: Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, JOHN F. KEENAN, D. LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ, ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., KATHRYN H. YRATIL and DAVID R. HANSEN, Judges of the Panel.
Reporter: Federal Supplement 2d
Volume: 346
Pages: 1373–1374

Head Matter:
In re SOLAIA TECHNOLOGY LLC PATENT & ANTITRUST LITIGATION
No. MDL 1645.
Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation.
Dec. 6, 2004.
Before WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman, JOHN F. KEENAN, D. LOWELL JENSEN, J. FREDERICK MOTZ, ROBERT L. MILLER, Jr., KATHRYN H. YRATIL and DAVID R. HANSEN, Judges of the Panel.
Judge Motz took no part in the disposition of this matter.

Opinion:
ORDER DENYING TRANSFER
WM. TERRELL HODGES, Chairman.
This litigation currently consists of the five actions listed on the attached Schedule A and pending in three districts as follows: two actions each in the Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern District of Wisconsin, and one action in the District of Minnesota. The docket's common party, Solaia Technology LLC, moves the Panel, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for an order centralizing this litigation in the Northern District of Illinois. All but one of the responding parties oppose transfer.
On the basis of the papers filed and hearing session held, the Panel finds that Section 1407 centralization would neither serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses nor further the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Movant has failed to persuade us that any common questions of fact and law are sufficiently complex, unresolved and/or numerous to justify Section 1407 transfer in this docket in which some constituent actions have already been pending for over two years. We point out that alternatives to transfer exist that can minimize whatever possibilities there might be of duplicative discovery and/or inconsistent pretrial rulings. See, e.g., In re Eli Lilly and Company (Cephalexin Monohydrate) Patent Litigation, 446 F.Supp. 242, 244 (Jud.Pan.Mult.Lit.1978). See also Manual for Complex Litigation, Fourth, § 20.14 (2004).
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1407, for centralization of the actions listed on Schedule A is denied.
SCHEDULE A
MDL-16J/.5 — In re Solaia Technology LLC Patent & Antitrust Litigation
Northern District of Illinois
Solaia Technology LLC v. ArvinMeritor, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:02-4704
Solaia Technology LLC v. Com Products International, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 1:03-9295
District of Minnesota
Ecolab, Inc., et al. v. Solaia Technology LLC, C.A. No. 0:03-3422
Eastern District of Wisconsin
Rockwell Automation, Inc., et al. v. Schneider Automation, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:02-1195
Solaia Technology LLC v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., et al., C.A. No. 2:03-939
. The Panel has also been notified of additional purportedly related actions pending in the Northern District of Illinois and the Eastern District of Wisconsin. In light of the Panel's disposition of this docket, the question of Section 1407 transfer with respect to these actions is moot.