Of all things people file lawsuits over, this has got to be one of the all-time weirdest: Bull semen. Specifically, “sexed semen” that allows cattle breeders to determine the sex of calves—and guarantee dairy farmers only get only milk-producing female cows.

In 2016, we awarded Akin Gump Strauss Hauer & Feld partner Kirt O'Neill Litigator of the Week for successfully defending Sexing Technologies against allegations that it injured a competitor by cornering the market sexed semen.

Alas, the glory proved short-lived.

Last week, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit reversed and remanded the case, finding that the verdict by the Wisconsin federal jury was “irreconcilably inconsistent” on two patent claims. (Akin partner Pratik Shah argued the appeal.)

As my colleague John Council previously reported for Lit Daily, plaintiff ABS Global sued Sexing in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin in 2014, alleging that the Texas-based company violated the Sherman Antitrust Act by establishing a monopoly over “sexed bovine semen.” Which (who knew?) is a $50 million industry in the U.S., with worldwide sales of $220 million.

In case you're wondering why the  case was heard by the Seventh Circuit and not the Federal Circuit, the panel explained.

ABS's complaint invoked only antitrust law, not patent law. Yes, Sexing Tech filed a counterclaim asserting patent infringement, but the Seventh Circuit panel held that “Any relation between the patent and antitrust claims is minor,” wrote Chief Judge Diane Wood for the unanimous panel. “The patent counterclaims in this case were permissive, and thus the appeal falls outside of the Federal Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction and is properly in this court.”

The Seventh Circuit judges agreed with the lower court that ABS violated a confidentiality agreement it had with Sexing Tech, and that Sexing Tech's patent was not invalid on obviousness grounds.

But they sided with ABS and its appellate team from Sidley Austin led by Constantine Trela, Jr. on one crucial point.

“The jury's assessments of two of the three patent claims still at issue, however, cannot be reconciled under the rules governing dependent claims and enablement,” Wood wrote, “and so a new trial is necessary on them.”