`
`Case MDL No. 3034 Document 50 Filed 06/14/22 Page 1 of 4Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.1 Filed 06/23/22 Page 1 of 4
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL
`on
`MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`MDL No. 3034
`
`
`IN RE: NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`PATENT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`TRANSFER ORDER
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Before the Panel:* Common plaintiff Neo Wireless, LLC (Neo), moves under 28 U.S.C.
`
`§ 1407 to centralize this litigation in the Eastern District of Texas. This litigation consists of seven
`actions pending in five districts, as listed on Schedule A. Responding defendants1 filed a joint
`brief. Defendants Volkswagen, Nissan, Honda, and Ford oppose centralization, while the
`remaining defendants do not oppose centralization. If the Panel deems centralization appropriate,
`all responding defendants suggest the Eastern District of Michigan as transferee district.
`
`
`On the basis of the 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 Eastern District of
`Michigan will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient
`conduct of the litigation. At issue in this litigation are six patents owned by Neo in the field of
`wireless communication systems.2 Neo alleges in all actions that the patents share common
`inventors and a common assignment history from Neocific, Inc. The patents are alleged to stem
`from a set of patent families describing improvements in wireless systems that have become
`relevant to the operation of 4G/LTE and 5G/New Radio cellular networks and compatible devices
`in the U.S. All accused infringers in these seven actions are automaker groups who are alleged to
`implement cellular communications technology into their vehicles, such as remote lock and
`unlock, remote start and remote start scheduling, parked vehicle location, remote fuel level checks,
`automatic collision notification, roadside assistance, and Wi-Fi hotspot. Neo alleges that, because
`
`
`Judge Dale A. Kimball took no part in the decision of this matter.
`
`*
`
` 1
`
`Volkswagen Group of America Inc. and Volkswagen Group of America Chattanooga
`
`Operations, LLC (“Volkswagen”); Nissan North America Inc. and Nissan Motor Acceptance
`Corporation (“Nissan”); American Honda Motor Co., Inc. and Honda Development &
`Manufacturing of America, LLC (“Honda”); Ford Motor Company (“Ford”); Toyota Motor North
`America, Inc., Toyota Motor Sales USA, Inc., and Toyota Motor Engineering & Manufacturing
`North America, Inc. (collectively “Toyota”); Tesla, Inc. (“Tesla”); and General Motors (“GM”).
`
` 2
`
`The six asserted patents are: U.S. Patent No. 8,467,366, U.S. Patent No. 10,833,908, U.S.
`
`Patent No. 10,075,941, U.S. Patent No. 10,447,450, U.S. Patent No. 10,965,512, and U.S. Patent
`No. 10,771,302.
`
`

`

`
`
`Case MDL No. 3034 Document 50 Filed 06/14/22 Page 2 of 4Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.2 Filed 06/23/22 Page 2 of 4
`
`- 2 -
`
`
`the patents all relate to fundamental aspects of LTE/4G and 5G/NR networks, the patents read
`directly onto LTE or 4G/5G technical standards. As a result, by complying with these standards,
`each defendant allegedly infringes the asserted patents. All actions thus can 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 will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the
`resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.
`
`Opposing defendants principally argue that centralization in the Eastern District of Texas
`would be inconvenient. They also argue that (1) the litigation is not advanced enough to determine
`whether there are sufficient common factual questions to warrant centralization; (2) cooperation
`among the parties is a preferable alternative to centralization; and (3) plaintiff is using Section
`1407 to engage in forum shopping. We do not find these arguments persuasive.
`
`It is true that these cases are in their earliest stages, but we can observe already that the
`patents and claims asserted in these actions overlap completely. While there may be variations in
`the specific wireless features used in defendants’ vehicles, all defendants are in the same industry
`with similar allegedly infringing products, and all are alleged to have infringed the same patents
`merely by implementing LTE or 4G/5G standards.3 We have held that infringement allegations
`concerning the implementation of certain industry standards weigh in favor of centralization.4
`Moreover, the common early procedural posture among the actions will facilitate their efficient
`coordination.
`
`We find that the most efficient management of these complex patent cases likely cannot be
`accomplished through informal coordination. Centralization offers substantial savings in terms of
`judicial economy by having a single judge become acquainted with the complex patented
`technology and construing the patent in a consistent fashion (as opposed to having five judges
`separately decide such issues).
`
`Finally, we are not persuaded by defendants’ accusations of forum shopping. Defendants
`do not argue that venue is not proper in any of the filed actions. Opposing defendants’ arguments
`against centralization primarily are aimed at their contention that centralization in the Eastern
`District of Texas would be inconvenient. But we have found that transfer is appropriate if it
`furthers the expeditious resolution of the litigation taken as a whole, even if it might cause
`inconvenience or delay to some parties. See, e.g., In re Crown Life Ins. Premium Ins. Litig., 178
`F. Supp. 2d 1365, 1366 (J.P.M.L. 2001).
`
`
`
`3
`See, e.g., Compl., Neo Wireless LLC v. Tesla Inc., C.A. No. 2:22-00095, ECF No. 1, at ⁋
`46 (E.D. Tex. Mar. 29, 2022).
`
`See, e.g., In re Rembrandt Techs., LP, Patent Litig., 493 F.Supp.2d 1367, 1369 (J.P.M.L.
`
` 4
`
`
`2007).
`
`

`

`
`
`Case MDL No. 3034 Document 50 Filed 06/14/22 Page 3 of 4Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.3 Filed 06/23/22 Page 3 of 4
`
`- 3 -
`
`
`
` PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION
`
`
`
`
` Karen K. Caldwell
`
`
` Chair
`
`Nathaniel M. Gorton
`David C. Norton
`
`Madeline Cox Arleo
`
` Matthew F. Kennelly
` Roger T. Benitez
`
`
`
`We find the Eastern District of Michigan to be an appropriate transferee district for this
`litigation. Two defendants are headquartered there, and defendants represent that most remaining
`defendants have a substantial presence there. Detroit, Michigan, is a convenient and easily
`accessible location, and centralization in this district before Judge Terrence G. Berg allows us to
`assign this litigation to a jurist who has not yet had the opportunity to preside over an MDL. We
`are confident in his ability to steer this litigation on a prudent course.
`
`IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the
`Eastern District of Michigan and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable
`Terrence G. Berg for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`
`
`Case MDL No. 3034 Document 50 Filed 06/14/22 Page 4 of 4Case 2:22-md-03034-TGB ECF No. 1, PageID.4 Filed 06/23/22 Page 4 of 4
`
`IN RE: NEO WIRELESS, LLC,
`PATENT LITIGATION
`
`MDL No. 3034
`
`SCHEDULE A
`
`Western District of Missouri
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 4:22−00210
`
`2:22-cv-11402
`
`Southern District of Ohio
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC v. AMERICAN HONDA MOTOR CO., INC., ET AL.,
`C.A. No. 2:22−01824
`
`2:22-cv-11403
`
`Eastern District of Tennessee
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,
`C.A. No. 1:22−00076
`
`2:22-cv-11404
`
`Middle District of Tennessee
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC v. NISSAN NORTH AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,
`C.A. No. 3:22−00220
`
`2:22-cv-11405
`
`Eastern District of Texas
`
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC v. TOYOTA MOTOR NORTH AMERICA, INC., ET AL.,
`C.A. No. 2:22−00093
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC v. GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, ET AL.,
`C.A. No. 2:22−00094
`NEO WIRELESS, LLC v. TESLA INC., C.A. No. 2:22−00095
`
`2:22-cv-11408
`
`2:22-cv-11406
`
`2:22cv-11407
`
`