Go to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.comGo to Wolters Kluwer VitalLaw.com
VitalLaw®
  • Find answers to your questions
  • Log in to access your subscriptions
In depth. On point.
In depth. On point.
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
  • Home
  • Legal Directory
In depth. On point.
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations
    • TOP STORY—D. Colo.: Cattle genetics company’s monopolization counterclaims time-barred
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: K-Line executive pleads guilty to ocean shipping price-fixing conspiracy
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Retailers allege that reverse payment agreements delayed launch of generic Opana, Aggrenox, and Solodyn
    • ANTITRUST NEWS: Wright, McSweeny offer differing views on net neutrality rule to House Judiciary Committee
    • ANTITRUST—N.D. Cal.: Form of notice questioned in Cathode Ray Tube settlement
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: FTC obtains order, files complaint against fraudulent “Yellow Pages” operations
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: Payment processors settle FTC charges over I Works scheme
    • CONSUMER PROTECTION NEWS: TRO issued against credit repair firm allegedly claiming affiliation with FTC
    • FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION NEWS: Georgia legislature passes bill to allow Tesla to sell directly to consumers
    • FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—E.D. N.C.: Distributor’s unfair practices claims proceed against Bimbo Bakeries
    • FRANCHISING & DISTRIBUTION—S.D. N.Y.: Former franchisee’s deceptive practices claims proceed against UPS
    • LAW FIRM NEWS: Francis Scarpulla leaves Zelle Hofmann to reopen his own shop
    • PRIVACY—W.D. Wis.: Consumer’s TCPA claims against retailer subject to arbitration
    • WORTH NOTING—Other Antitrust and Trade Regulation developments
  • Articles
  • Articles
  • Law Firms
  • Law Firms
  • Organizations
  • Organizations

    Antitrust Law Daily Wrap Up, TOP STORY—D. Colo.: Cattle genetics company’s monopolization counterclaims time-barred, (Mar 27, 2015)

    Law Firms Mentioned:Akin, Gump, Strauss, Hauer & Feld, LLP
    Organizations Mentioned:Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld, LLP | Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, LLP | Trans Ova Genetics, LC | XY LLC

    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 g ...

    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

    © 2026 CCH Incorporated and its affiliates and licensors. All rights reserved.

    • Manage Cookie Preferences
    • Privacy Statement
    • Terms of Use