DocketNumber: Civ. A. No. 71-166
Citation Numbers: 53 F.R.D. 582
Judges: Knox
Filed Date: 2/22/1971
Status: Precedential
Modified Date: 11/26/2022
MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO AMEND AND ADD COUNTERCLAIMS IN PART
In this patent infringement action which was filed February 22, 1971, defendant on September 16, 1971, filed a Motion to Amend Its Answer and to Add Counterclaims and Counterdefendants. We have received briefs and heard the arguments of the parties and have concluded to allow the amendment and the counterclaims only against the original plaintiff.
We are admonished by the United States Supreme Court in Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 83 S.Ct. 227, 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962) to allow amendments freely in the absence of certain reasons such as “undue delay, bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, futility of amendment, etc.”
On the other hand, we also recognize the ruling as enunciated by Chief
These counterclaims are filed under Rules 13(f)
It does not appear that the counterdefendants are subject to service of process issued by this court with the possible exception of counterdefendant, Olympia Sports Products, Inc., which is alleged to have sales representation in Pennsylvania.
The counterclaims are in general for violation of the patent laws and the antitrust laws. Insofar as action under the anti-trust laws are concerned, we are bound by the provisions of 15 U.S.C. § 15 which provides for jurisdiction in treble damage actions over individual defendants “in the district in which the defendant resides or is found or has an agent * * *.” With respect to corporate defendants, 15 U.S.C. § 22 provides for venue in the judicial district where the corporation is “an inhabitant” and in any district wherein it may be found or transacts business.
We will, however, permit defendant, Grayson, to file counterclaims against the plaintiff, Universal Athletic Sales Company, since if there are related counterclaims against the original plaintiff, it is proper that they be adjudicated in this action.
It may be that certain of the counterclaims are insufficient in law but if so, the plaintiff has means of attacking them after they are filed.
Since the language of the proposed amendment and counterclaims inextricably involves not only the plaintiff
. “Omitted Counterclaim. When a pleader fails to set up a counterclaim through oversight, inadvertence, or excusable neglect or when justice requires, he may by leave of course set up the counterclaim by amendment.”
. “Joinder of Additional Parties. Persons other than those made parties to the original action may be made parties to a counterclaim or cross-claim in accordance with the provisions of Rules 19 and 20. As amended Jan. 21, 1963, eff. July 1, 1963; Feb. 28, 1966, eff. July 1, 1966.”