Soja: ROSARIO
$319.500 0.03%
Maíz: ROSARIO
$202.000 1.00%
Trigo: ROSARIO
$232.400 0.78%
By Agroempresario.com
In a major development within the U.S. functional food sector, a federal judge has denied a temporary restraining order (TRO) in a high-profile antitrust lawsuit involving David Protein and Epogee, the developer of a patented low-calorie fat alternative known as EPG. The plaintiffs—OWN Your Hunger, Lighten Up Foods, and Defiant Foods—had asked the court to require David Protein to resume supplying EPG, claiming the company’s acquisition of Epogee effectively cut them off from a key ingredient they had relied on to build their food businesses.
In a 12-page opinion filed Tuesday, Judge Victor Marrero of the Southern District of New York ruled against the plaintiffs, concluding they had “not demonstrated a likelihood of success on the merits” of their claims and therefore were not entitled to emergency relief. Specifically, he emphasized that the plaintiffs were not direct competitors of David Protein, nor had they shown that no alternative ingredients were available in the market.
The lawsuit, filed in early June 2025, centers on allegations that David Protein’s acquisition of Epogee constitutes anticompetitive behavior aimed at excluding rivals and monopolizing the emerging market for fat-replacement ingredients in low-calorie indulgent foods.
According to the complaint, the plaintiffs invested significant time and capital into building products based on EPG (esterified propoxylated glycerol)—a plant-based fat alternative that mimics traditional fats with a fraction of the caloric impact. EPG, patented by Epogee, is made by chemically modifying vegetable oils to prevent digestion by lipase, an enzyme responsible for breaking down fats in the human body. The result is a functional fat substitute with just 0.7 calories per gram compared to 9 calories in traditional fats.
The plaintiffs allege that David Protein, following its acquisition of Epogee, systematically denied access to EPG for outside manufacturers. They argue this was done to give David Protein’s own line of protein bars a competitive edge while manipulating the supply chain to create an artificial monopoly.
However, Judge Marrero rejected these assertions. “The plaintiffs have failed to establish that they are in the same market or direct competitors with David Protein,” he wrote. “David Protein produces protein bars, whereas the plaintiffs manufacture items such as nut spreads, sauces, and chocolates. These products may share ingredient inputs, but they do not represent the same product category or market segment.”
Additionally, the judge noted that the plaintiffs had shifted their definition of the relevant market—from the U.S. supply market for EPG to the broader low-calorie indulgent foods market—without adequately supporting either claim with data on market share or interchangeability of ingredients.
“The record includes evidence that some manufacturers successfully reformulated products after losing access to EPG,” he added, undercutting the argument that no adequate substitutes were available.
David Protein, which operates under the trade name Linus Technology, emphasized in court filings that EPG is protected by four patents, giving them exclusive control over its production and distribution. The company noted that unlike the plaintiffs, it had secured a long-term supply contract with Epogee before the acquisition, ensuring access to EPG for its own formulations.
“Patent law does not obligate a company to sell its proprietary invention to third parties,” David Protein argued. “There is no antitrust violation in choosing not to supply a patented ingredient, especially where no prior contract existed.”
David Protein added that the plaintiffs failed to take basic risk-mitigation steps, such as negotiating binding supply agreements. “Now they want the court to rescue them from a business decision they made voluntarily,” the defense team asserted.
The plaintiffs, meanwhile, maintain that David Protein and Epogee acted in bad faith during what they describe as a “concealed acquisition period.” They claim Epogee provided misleading assurances about future availability of EPG—citing communications in March promising resumed supply by May—only to notify customers on May 29 that all orders were suspended following the acquisition.
This, they argue, prevented them from making alternative sourcing decisions in time, resulting in production delays, lost revenue, and strategic damage. “By stringing along customers and then abruptly cutting off access,” the lawsuit claims, “David Protein engaged in systematic supply denial to monopolize a growing category.”
The case underscores growing tensions in the functional ingredients market, particularly around novel components like EPG that blur the line between food innovation and pharmaceutical-like exclusivity. As consumer demand for clean-label, low-calorie, and functional foods continues to climb, control over unique ingredients can be both a commercial advantage and a regulatory flashpoint.
EPG’s appeal lies in its ability to function like real fat—providing mouthfeel, flavor delivery, and thermal behavior—without the metabolic costs. Unlike alternatives based on fibers, gums, or sugar alcohols, EPG has a sensory profile closer to traditional fats, making it ideal for indulgent formulations with caloric reductions of up to 85%.
While the request for a temporary restraining order was denied, the broader case—OWN Your Hunger, Lighten Up Foods, and Defiant Foods vs Linus Technology (David Protein), Epogee, and Peter Rahal—will proceed in the Southern District of New York. The outcome could set an important precedent for future disputes involving patent-protected food technologies and access to foundational ingredients in the rapidly evolving alt-fat and clean-label formulation space.
The next hearing is expected later this summer, as parties begin discovery and prepare for potential motions on the merits of the antitrust claims.
