by contract may consent to the jurisdiction of a court which otherwise would have no power over him.”) (citing Nat’l Equip. Rental, Ltd. v. Szuk-hent, 375 U.S. 311, 315-16, 84 S.Ct. 411, 11 L.Ed.2d 354 (1964)). Many courts have concluded that personal jurisdiction may be based upon implied consent or waiver when a non-resident files a claim in the forum state that involves the same transaction. See, e,g., Frank’s Casing Crew & Rental Tools, Inc. v. PMR Techs., Ltd., 292 F.3d 1363, 1372 (Fed.Cir.2002) (concluding' that because the defendant “voluntarily invoked the court’s jurisdiction as a plaintiff in a class action, it waived its personal jurisdiction defense to the suits brought by [the plaintiff].”); General Contracting & Trading Co. v. Interpole, Inc., 940 F.2d 20 (1st Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>); Lyman Steel Corp. v. Ferrostaal Metals Corp.,
holding the same holding that a court may exercise pendant personal jurisdiction over a foreign defendant with respect to state law claims that arise out of a nucleus of operative facts common to a federal antitrust claim holding that a defendant who elected to avail itself of the benefit of a state courts jurisdiction by filing a prior suit against the same party waives its personal jurisdiction defense in all actions related to the claim and arising out of the same nucleus of operative facts for which it originally invoked the courts jurisdiction holding that a defendant that invokes the jurisdiction of a court as a plaintiff waives its personal jurisdiction defense in all actions related to the claim for which it invoked the courts jurisdiction holding that a claim is barred by res judicata if it arises out of the same nucleus of operative facts as the prior claim