|
<OFFTOPIC--sort of>>MS, thanks. That was an excellent response. Disclaimer: I am not an attorney and am not trying to sound like a know-it-all student. The one thing I know is that I don't know it all <g>. Feel very free to disagree. But, I believe, the same transaction or occurance test only applies to joinder of parties. Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 18(a) provides, "a party asserting a claim to relief as an original claim, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third party claim may join, either as independant or as alternate claims, as many claims...as the party has against an opposing party". So, it would seem that DEC could join its anti-trust action with the patent infringement suit even it was deemed to fall outside of the same transaction or occurance. DEC could then use supplemental jurisdiction to join Intel's counterclaim to the action. In the interest of judicial economy, as you pointed out, DEC would have fairly good odds of achieving its ends. Or, wouldn't it be possible for a separate trial on the return of the documents. Such a trial, if it is possible to separate it from the other claims, would undoubtedly be expiditiously disposed.
|
