Man in violation of privacy law

Breaking news and expert analysis on legal and compliance issues

[Back To Home][Back To Archives]

From Antitrust Law Daily, March 27, 2015

Cattle genetics company’s monopolization counterclaims time-barred

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

The owner of patented sex-selection technology successfully obtained summary judgment over a cattle genetics company’s monopolization and attempted monopolization counterclaims. The federal district court in Denver determined that the cattle genetics company’s counterclaims were time-barred under the Sherman Act’s four-year statute of limitations (XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC, March 26, 2015, Martínez, W.).

XY, LLC is the owner of patented sex-selection technology, which it licensed to cattle genetics company Trans Ova Genetics, LC in April 2004. XY delivered a termination letter to Trans Ova in November 2007, stating that Trans Ova breached the licensing agreement. Eventually, XY filed a patent infringement suit against Trans Ova, and Trans Ova filed 33 counterclaims in August 2012, including monopolization and attempted monopolization counterclaims.

XY moved for summary judgment, alleging that the monopolization counterclaims were time-barred under the Sherman Act’s four-year statute of limitations. Specifically, XY argued that Trans Ova’s alleged injury arose from the November 2007 termination letter, but the counterclaims were filed more than four years after the letter was sent.

Conversely, Trans Ova argued that the continuing conspiracy exception applies, rendering its Sherman Act claims timely. The court rejected the continuing conspiracy argument, however, finding that Trans Ova failed to demonstrate that it suffered new and accumulating injury from XY’s actions after the termination letter. Trans Ova admitted that both its antitrust and contract damages resulted from being excluded from the relevant markets, which occurred when XY sent the termination letter in 2007. The counterclaims, however, were filed in August 2012—more than 4 years after the termination letter was sent. XY’s motion for summary judgment was therefore granted.

The case number is 13-cv-0876-WJM-NYW.

Attorneys: Daniel Lynn Moffett (Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP) for XY, LLC. Donald E. Lake, III (Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP) for Trans Ova Genetics, LC.

Companies: XY LLC; Trans Ova Genetics, LC

MainStory: TopStory Antitrust ColoradoNews

Antitrust Law Daily

Introducing Wolters Kluwer Antitrust Law Daily — a daily reporting service created by attorneys, for attorneys — providing same-day coverage of breaking news, court decisions, legislation, and regulatory activity.

A complete daily report of the news that affects your world

  • View full summaries of federal and state court decisions.
  • Access full text of legislative and regulatory developments.
  • Customize your daily email by topic and/or jurisdiction.
  • Search archives for stories of interest.

Not just news — the right news

  • Get expert analysis written by subject matter specialists—created by attorneys for attorneys.
  • Track law firms and organizations in the headlines with our new “Who’s in the News” feature.
  • Promote your firm with our new reprint policy.

24/7 access for a 24/7 world

  • Forward information with special copyright permissions, encouraging collaboration between counsel and colleagues.
  • Save time with mobile apps for your BlackBerry, iPhone, iPad, Android, or Kindle.
  • Access all links from any mobile device without being prompted for user name and password.