Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, ANTITRUST—D. Colo.: Monopolization counterclaims partially construed as recoupment counterclaims, (Jan 4, 2016)

By Greg Hammond, J.D.

A cattle genetics company could reassert its monopolization and attempted monopolization counterclaims, which were previously found time-barred, as claims in recoupment, the federal district court in Denver has decided. In partially granting the genetics company’s motion to construe, the court determined that the counterclaims arose from the same transaction as the plaintiff’s suit; the counterclaims sought relief of the same kind or nature as plaintiff’s claim; and the counterclaims sought an amount not in excess of the plaintiff’s claim (XY, LLC v. Trans Ova Genetics, LC, December 30, 2015, Martínez, W.).

XY, LLC—the owner of patented sex-selection technology—filed a patent infringement suit against Trans Ova Genetics, LC—a cattle genetics company—after XY terminated a licensing agreement with Trans Ova. The district court previously dismissed Trans Ova’s monopolization and attempted monopolization counterclaims as time-barred. Trans Ova subsequently moved to construe the antitrust counterclaims as recoupment counterclaims.

XY. The court granted the motion with regard to the counterclaims against XY, finding: (1) Trans Ova’s antitrust claims involve largely the same issues of fact and law as XY’s breach of contract and patent infringement claims because the alleged anticompetitive acts arise from the same license agreement and resulting “relationship” between XY and Trans Ova; (2) both XY and Trans Ova seek monetary damages; and (3) the inherent structure of a claim in recoupment limits the available remedy to an offset of whatever monetary amount XY is awarded in the event that it is successful on its claims.

Inguran. XY’s motion was denied, however, with regard to third-party defendant Inguran, LLC. The court reasoned that Trans Ova failed to identify any authority for the proposition that a recoupment claim may be asserted against a third party. In addition, Inguran cannot be entitled to monetary relief in this action because the company did not bring any claims. Trans Ova therefore effectively conceded that it could not obtain any recovery from Inguran via its recoupment claim.

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