Plant-based food company thwarts lawsuit dismissal bid
Dispute centres on ingredients used in plant-based meat products | Dismissal bid concerned five patents covering imitation meat with no animal protein.
A federal judge has dismissed an attempt to dismiss several patents in a suit brought by Impossible Foods against a competitor.
Yesterday, November 14, Judge William Bryson of the US District Court for the District of Delaware refused a motion to dismiss four of the seven patents alleged to be infringed, filed by rival Motif Foodworks.
Back in March, Impossible Foods accused Motif Foodworks of infringing a series of patents covering its manufacturing processes, ingredients, and finished food products.
Impossible produces and sells plant-based meat products that use a plant-based heme-containing protein called soy leghemoglobin. Meanwhile, Motif Foodworks use an ingredient called ‘Hemami’, which includes a heme-containing protein called bovine myoglobin.
In its suit—which was later amended twice and now states that Motif Foodworks infringed seven patents—Impossible claimed that Motif’s products which included ‘Hemami’ infringe the patents.
In response, Motif filed a motion to dismiss the counts of infringement relating to four patents, as well as one claim of another patent.
Each of the Impossible patents that Motif looked to dismiss had claim limitations which cover imitation meat without any animal protein. Motif claimed that ‘Hemami’ doesn’t infringe because it includes “bovine myoglobin”, an animal protein that occurs naturally in domesticated cows, and is excluded from the scope of the claims.
However, Impossible claimed that the bovine myoglobin used in ‘Hemami’ is not derived from any animal source.
The court agreed with Impossible’s argument, finding that the company had “plausibly alleged” that Motif’s ‘Hemami’ products include bovine myoglobin that was not derived from an animal source.
Bryson said it was “inappropriate to conduct a claim construction analysis at the pleading stage” and so assumed the broader construction of “non-animal heme-containing protein” applied (one that only requires that the protein be derived from a non-animal source).
“The claim construction dispute underlying this motion may ultimately be resolved in Motif’s favour,” said Bryson, before adding that at this point “Motif has failed to demonstrate that Impossible fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted”.
Motif’s motion to dismiss the patents was denied.
Did you enjoy reading this story? Sign up to our free daily newsletters and get stories sent like this straight to your inbox.
Today’s top stories
