In In re Bear Creek Technologies, Inc., the key issue before the US Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) was whether the JPML had the authority to centralize 14 separate patent infringement actions for pretrial proceedings under Title 28, Section 1407 of the US Code. In particular, the JPML addressed whether Section 299 of the America Invents Act (AIA) limits its authority to centralize the claims. Section 299 prohibits consolidating patent infringement claims against multiple defendants for trial based solely on allegations that they each have infringed the patent in suit.

This action involves 14 separate patent infringement actions by Bear Creek against various telecommunications companies. Each action asserts infringement of Bear Creek's US Patent No. 7,889,722 ('722 patent). Bear Creek moved to centralize all claims for pretrial proceedings under Section 1407. Certain of the defendants opposed centralization. In particular, Vonage Holdings Corp. argued that Section 299 of the AIA precludes the panel from centralizing the actions.

Section 299 provides that accused infringers may not, based solely on allegations that they each have infringed the patent in suit, either:

Bear Creek argued in its response that the plain language of Section 299 does not apply to a request for pretrial centralization that does not involve joinder of the defendants in one action or consolidation for trial.

The JPML concluded that it was appropriate to centralize the actions in the District of Delaware for pretrial proceedings. In reaching its decision, the JPML found that Section 299 does not alter its authority to order pretrial centralization. The JPML looked to the plain meaning of the statutes, noting that:

The JPML dismissed Vonage's assertions that centralization would allow an "end run" around the AIA's joinder requirements, noting that centralization is not automatic and depends on the circumstances in the specific litigation.

The JPML concluded, in what it characterized as a "close call," that pretrial centralization of the 14 actions was appropriate because:

This decision preserves the JPML's authority to centralize patent infringement cases. This benefits patent holders because it provides a way to efficiently pursue claims against multiple defendants for infringement of the same patent.