This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

D has a copyrighted computer program called ADEX. P, a competitor, allegedly copied ADEX without authorization. D sued P in the District of Massachusetts for copyright infringement and related causes of action. P moved to dismiss the action. That motion was denied, and P sued D in California state court for violation of the Cartwright Act, the state's Antitrust Act. P's California suit was based, factually, on the behavior of D with respect to its ADEX product. D removed the California antitrust action to Federal Court. D then moved to dismiss or stay this action asserting that it is a compulsory counterclaim under Fed. R. Civ. P. 13(a) to the Massachusetts action or to transfer this action to Massachusetts under 28 U.S.C. 1404 for the convenience of the parties and witnesses. P amended its complaint to add two new defendants and a number of new allegations of predatory practices assertedly in violation of antitrust laws. The Massachusetts court probably has no personal jurisdiction over the new defendants. Recently, two other plaintiffs (both using P's counsel) have filed similar antitrust suits against D in the Northern District of California. Some of the issues raised by D in its action were also raised in P’s action

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.