Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Colo.: Cattle sexing technology company unable to exclude 'antitrust,' 'monopoly' references at trial, (Jan 8, 2016)

By Linda O’Brien, J.D., LL.M.

A cattle sexing technology company could not preclude a cattle genetics company’s references to “antitrust,” “monopolization,” ‘monopoly,” or “anticompetitive conduct” in its defense against the technology company’s patent infringement claims, the federal district court in Denver has ruled. Thus, the plaintiff company’s motion in limine was denied (XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC, January 7, 2016, Martínez, W.).

XY, LLC—the owner of patented sex-technology—filed a patent infringement and breach of contract suit against Trans Ova Genetics, LC—a cattle genetics company—after XY terminated a licensing agreement with Trans Ova. The court dismissed Trans Ova’s monopolization and attempted monopolization counterclaims as time-barred and also denied Trans Ova’s motion to construe the antitrust counterclaims as recoupment claims against third-party defendant Inguran, LLC—another sexing technologies company. Before the court was XY’s motion in limine, seeking to preclude certain evidence at trial.

Antitrust, anticompetitive conduct, market power terms. XY argued that any references to “antitrust,” “monopolization,” “monopoly,” “anticompetitive conduct,” or Inguran’s attempts to gain market power or harm competition should be excluded based on the court’s grant of summary judgment on Trans Ova’s Sherman Act counterclaims.

The court noted that, although Trans Ova’s motion to construe the antitrust counterclaims as recoupment claims against Inguran was denied, Trans Ova was permitted to reassert its antitrust counterclaims as recoupment claims against XY. Those counterclaims, if successful, would allow Trans Ova to offset any damages that XY might win on its claims. Since those counterclaims were revived against XY and could be argued to a jury, the terms and arguments in support of Trans Ova’s recoupment defense should not be precluded.

However, evidence of Inguran’s market power was no longer relevant to the case and should be precluded. According to the court, Trans Ova’s counterclaims against Inguarn were not revived via recoupment, and Trans Ova’s patent misuse claim against Inguran has been dismissed. The only relevant market power to Trans Ova’s patent misuse defense against XY’s infringement claim is the market power of the patent owner, which is XY in this case.

The case is No. 13-cv-0876-WJM-NYW.

Attorneys: Daniel Lynn Moffett (Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP) and Jon F. Sands. (Sweetbaum Sands Anderson, PC) for XY LLC. Donald E. Lake, III (Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP) for Trans Ova Genetics, LC. Kirt Stephen O'Neill (Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP) for Inguran, LLC.

Companies: XY, LLC; Trans Ova Genetics, LC; Inguran, LLC

Cases: Antitrust ColoradoNews