Inguran v. ABS Global: Microfluidic Sperm-Sorting Patents Dismissed With Prejudice
ST Genetics parent Inguran LLC and Cytonome/ST LLC brought a three-patent infringement action against ABS Global and parent Genus PLC over microfluidic chip technology used in sexed-semen artificial insemination. After 1,372 days of litigation in the Western District of Wisconsin, all claims and counterclaims were dismissed with prejudice under a joint stipulation, with each side bearing its own costs.
Three Bovine AI Patents, Two Genetics Giants, One Joint Exit
Filed on 15 April 2020 in the Western District of Wisconsin, this consolidated infringement action pitted ST Genetics-affiliated entities Inguran LLC and Cytonome/ST LLC against livestock genetics companies ABS Global Inc. and its UK-listed parent Genus PLC. At its core, the dispute concerned whether ABS’s microfluidic chips — marketed under the SSC-B and GSS machine lines — and its commercial sexed-semen straws sold to dairy and beef farmers infringed three patents covering microfluidic cell-sorting and flow cytometry methods central to high-throughput sperm sex-sorting.
The case closed on 17 January 2024 through a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a) stipulated dismissal with prejudice. Both sides agreed to drop all claims and counterclaims, and critically, each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees, costs and expenses. A dismissal with prejudice bars the dismissing parties from refiling the same claims, meaning neither ST nor ABS can resurrect these specific infringement or counterclaim theories in a subsequent action — a permanent procedural bar on the asserted claims.
The 1,372-day duration suggests the parties litigated substantively before reaching resolution, consistent with complex Markman proceedings and potentially contested validity challenges typical of flow cytometry patent disputes. The mutual cost-bearing arrangement — rather than a fee-shifting award — and the symmetrical dismissal of both claims and counterclaims suggest a negotiated commercial settlement rather than a courtroom defeat for either side. The economic terms of any underlying commercial arrangement, if one exists, remain confidential and are not reflected in the public docket.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 1372 days
1,372 days — nearly 3.75 years from filing to dismissal, well above the median patent case duration
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a) stipulated dismissal — a mutual, negotiated close
Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a), parties may jointly stipulate to dismissal without court approval once an answer has been filed. A ‘with prejudice’ designation means the dismissing party permanently waives the right to re-litigate the same claims. Here, both sides — plaintiffs and counterclaim-plaintiffs alike — agreed to the with-prejudice bar, suggesting a mutual desire for finality rather than a unilateral concession.
Permanent bar on re-filingST Genetics cannot re-assert these claims against ABS on the same facts
Inguran and Cytonome/ST secured no public damages award and no injunction — but the dismissal with prejudice also ends ABS’s counterclaims against them. The three asserted patents remain in force and enforceable against third parties; only the specific claims against ABS are extinguished. ST retains its IP portfolio for future enforcement actions against other competitors in the bovine sperm-sorting market.
Patents survive; this claim does notABS avoids an infringement finding — but waives its counterclaims too
ABS Global and Genus PLC walk away without a court finding of infringement on their microfluidic SSC-B and GSS machines or sexed-semen straw products. However, ABS also dismissed its counterclaims with prejudice, which typically include invalidity and unenforceability challenges. ABS cannot now use those counterclaim theories as offensive tools against ST in a future action on the same patents.
No infringement finding; counterclaims also waivedBilateral exit leaves the sexed-semen IP landscape unresolved for the market
The absence of a merits ruling means the three ST patents — covering microfluidic sperm-sorting central to modern bovine AI — have not been judicially tested for validity or infringement scope. Other competitors entering the sexed-semen or microfluidic cell-sorting space face the same patent risk as ABS did entering litigation. The mutual cost-bearing and symmetric dismissal are consistent with a commercial resolution that resets the competitive relationship between the two industry leaders.
Patent scope untested; sector risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Inguran, LLC | Company | Bovine genetics and sexed-semen technology licensor — holder of US11446665B2, US10689210B2, US10583439B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Plaintiff | Cytonome/ST, LLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | ABS Global, Inc. | Company | ABS Global Inc. (and parent Genus PLC) — global livestock genetics and artificial insemination supplierSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Genus, PLC | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Clark Gordon | Attorney | Counsel for Inguran, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Clayton Nicholas Matheson | Attorney | Counsel for Inguran, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Corey William Roush | Attorney | Counsel for Inguran, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Daniel L. Moffett | Attorney | Counsel for Inguran, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | George Andrew Rosbrook | Attorney | Counsel for Inguran, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Haidee Schwartz | Attorney | Counsel for Inguran, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Hannah D. Price | Attorney | Counsel for Inguran, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathan Michael Hernandez | Attorney | Counsel for Inguran, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Kirt Stephen O’Neill | Attorney | Counsel for Inguran, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Megan Mahoney | Attorney | Counsel for Inguran, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Sarah Anne Zylstra | Attorney | Counsel for Inguran, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Thomas Watson Landers , IV | Attorney | Counsel for Inguran, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld LLP | Law Firm | Representing Inguran, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Antonelli, Harrington & Thompson LLP | Law Firm | Representing Inguran, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Boardman & Clark LLP | Law Firm | Representing Inguran, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bonnie K. St. Charles | Attorney | Counsel for ABS Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Brooke Shanelle Boll | Attorney | Counsel for ABS Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bryan Clifford Mulder | Attorney | Counsel for ABS Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Christopher Shoup | Attorney | Counsel for ABS Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | David Lloyd Anderson | Attorney | Counsel for ABS Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Gwen Hochman Stewart | Attorney | Counsel for ABS Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jason Phillip Greenhut | Attorney | Counsel for ABS Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Justin Harold Lessner | Attorney | Counsel for ABS Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Kevin Robert Oliver | Attorney | Counsel for ABS Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Michael J. Modl | Attorney | Counsel for ABS Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Neil H. Conrad | Attorney | Counsel for ABS Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Richard M. Chen | Attorney | Counsel for ABS Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Stephanie P. Koh | Attorney | Counsel for ABS Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven Joseph Horowitz | Attorney | Counsel for ABS Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Thomas D. Rein | Attorney | Counsel for ABS Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Axley Brynelson, LLP | Law Firm | Representing ABS Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Kelley Drye & Warren LLP | Law Firm | Representing ABS Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Sidley Austin LLP | Law Firm | Representing ABS Global, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Wisconsin Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation’s language is deliberately symmetric: all claims by ST and all counterclaims by ABS are dismissed with prejudice simultaneously, and costs are allocated without any fee-shifting. This phrasing is legally significant — it signals that neither party secured a concession that would appear as a ‘win’ on the public docket. The with-prejudice mutual bar and the no-costs provision are hallmarks of a negotiated commercial resolution. The court made no findings on infringement, validity, or claim scope, leaving the three asserted patents judicially untested.
US11446665B2, US10689210B2 & US10583439B2 — Microfluidic Sperm-Sorting Technology
The three asserted patents — US11446665B2, US10689210B2, and US10583439B2 — span application numbers filed between 2014 and 2019, covering microfluidic chip architectures and flow cytometry methods used to sort bovine sperm by sex at commercial scale. These patents sit at the technological heart of modern sexed-semen production: the ability to use microfluidic channels and optical detection to separate X- and Y-chromosome-bearing sperm with sufficient throughput for commercial artificial insemination straws. US10583439B2, with its earlier application date of 2014, represents foundational coverage in this family.
ST Genetics (through Inguran and Cytonome/ST) occupies a dominant position in bovine sexed-semen technology globally, and this patent portfolio is central to that market position. The assertion of three patents — covering chips, machines, and methods — against ABS’s SSC-B and GSS platforms reflects a comprehensive enforcement posture designed to protect the full stack of ST’s microfluidic IP. For competitors developing alternative sperm-sorting platforms, the breadth of these claims across hardware architecture and process methodology represents a significant freedom-to-operate challenge that the ABS litigation left judicially unresolved.
Should your team run an FTO against US11446665B2 and the ST Genetics microfluidic portfolio?
Any company developing or commercialising microfluidic cell-sorting technology for reproductive biology — including bovine, equine, or porcine AI applications — should assess exposure to ST Genetics’ patent estate. The three patents asserted here cover chip architectures, flow cytometry sorting methods, and high-throughput processing, meaning that both hardware manufacturers and service providers using sexed-semen technology may face independent infringement risk. The ABS litigation produced no claim construction order or validity finding that limits the scope of these patents.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the independent claims of US11446665B2, US10689210B2, and US10583439B2, identify relevant prior art that ABS never placed on the public record, and surface related family members that may have equivalent claims in international jurisdictions where Genus and ST both operate. For R&D teams designing microfluidic sperm-sorting or flow cytometry platforms, an early-stage FTO assessment against this portfolio is a material risk-management step.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11446665B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar microfluidic and bovine AI patent infringement cases in US district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions involving microfluidic cell-sorting, flow cytometry, and bovine reproductive technology litigated in US district courts.
What this case signals for the bovine genetics and microfluidic IP landscape
A 3.75-year dispute ending in mutual dismissal with prejudice tells a complex story about market power, patent strategy, and sector consolidation in livestock AI technology.
ST’s patent portfolio remains fully armed against third-party competitors
The with-prejudice dismissal extinguishes only the specific claims against ABS. US11446665B2, US10689210B2, and US10583439B2 remain live and enforceable. Any new entrant into microfluidic sperm-sorting or high-throughput sexed-semen production should treat ST’s portfolio as an active enforcement risk and conduct FTO analysis before commercialising.
No invalidity ruling means ABS’s counterclaims offer no prior art shield to others
ABS’s dismissed invalidity counterclaims created no public record of patent weakness. Competitors cannot rely on ABS’s litigation positions as a roadmap to challenge ST’s patents in IPR or district court. A fresh, independent validity analysis is required for any party seeking to design around or challenge these microfluidic claims.
Inguran v ABS — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on 17 January 2024 by joint stipulation under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a). All infringement claims by Inguran LLC and Cytonome/ST LLC, and all counterclaims by ABS Global Inc. and Genus PLC, were extinguished. Each party bore its own costs and attorneys’ fees. No damages award, injunction, or merits ruling was entered by the court.
Plaintiffs asserted three US patents: US11446665B2 (application no. US16/813255), US10689210B2 (application no. US16/719537), and US10583439B2 (application no. US14/213800). All three relate to microfluidic chip technology and flow cytometry methods used in high-throughput sexed-semen production for bovine artificial insemination.
No. A Rule 41(a) dismissal with prejudice resolves only the claims between these specific parties. The court made no findings on patent validity, claim construction, or infringement scope. US11446665B2, US10689210B2, and US10583439B2 remain in force and enforceable against third parties. ABS’s invalidity counterclaims were also dismissed without any judicial ruling on the merits.
ABS Global’s microfluidic chips used in its SSC-B and GSS sperm-sorting machines were accused of infringement, along with sexed and conventional semen sold in artificial insemination straws at sperm concentrations suited for bovine AI. These products are used by dairy and beef farmers for sex-selected breeding programs.
No. A dismissal with prejudice operates as a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes. Inguran and Cytonome/ST cannot refile the dismissed infringement claims against ABS Global and Genus PLC based on the same patents and accused products. Equally, ABS and Genus cannot revive their dismissed counterclaims — including any invalidity challenges — against ST in a subsequent action arising from the same facts.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.