WORLD WIDE MEDICAL TECHNOLOGIES LLC et al v. CORE ONCOLOGY INC et al

Filing 69

ORDER - The Clerk is directed to open a separate case for each defendant.Because it appears that common questions of law are involved in these eight patent infringement cases, the cases shall be consolidated for the purpose of pre-trial matters pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a). During this phase, all pleadings shall be filed only in case 4:11cv614/RS- CAS. The parties do not need to re-file any documents. Signed by JUDGE RICHARD SMOAK on 4/11/2012. (jcw)

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
TALLAHASSEE DIVISION
WORLD WIDE MEDICAL TECH.
LLC., et al.,
vs.

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 4:11cv614/RS-CAS

CORE ONCOLOGY, INC., et al.,
Defendants.
__________________________________
ORDER
Plaintiff brought this patent infringement suit against eight defendants. (See Doc.
39). Plaintiff claims that each of the Defendants sold the infringing products within this
district. Id. at ¶ 16. Plaintiff does not allege that the Defendants acted in concert or that
they share liability.
Accused patent infringers may be joined in one action where “any right to relief is
asserted against the parties jointly, severally, or in the alternative with respect to or
arising out of the same transaction [or] occurrence.” 35 U.S.C.A. § 299(a)(1). “Accused
infringers may not be joined in one action as defendants or . . . or have their actions
consolidated for trial, based solely on allegations that they each have infringed the patent
. . . .” Id. at § 299(b). This recently enacted provision supports and clarifies the federal
rules on joinder for patent cases. Fed. R. Civ. P. 20(a) does not permit unrelated parties
who manufacture or sell similar products, which may have infringed upon the same

patent, to be joined as defendants in the same suit. See Brandywine Communs. Techs.,
LLC v. Verizon Communs., Inc., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 20724 (M.D. Fla. 2012).
Some defendants argue that the most appropriate remedy for mis-joinder is
dismissal of claims and dropping of parties. In the interest of efficiency, I decline to do
this. Fed. R. Civ. P. 21 allows claims to be severed, and this will allow for the quickest
resolution of these matters.

IT IS ORDERED:
1. The Clerk is directed to open a separate case for each defendant.
2. Because it appears that common questions of law are involved in these eight
patent infringement cases, the cases shall be consolidated for the purpose of
pre-trial matters pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 42(a).
3. During this phase, all pleadings shall be filed only in case 4:11cv614/RSCAS.
4. The parties do not need to re-file any documents.

ORDERED April 11, 2012.
/S/ Richard Smoak
RICHARD SMOAK
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE