The Patent Trial and Appeal Board recently upheld Impossible Foods’ patent for its plant-based hamburger, following a ruling made last week. The patent was contested by Motif FoodWorks amid an ongoing legal dispute between the plant-based meat producer and the food technology company. After Impossible Foods filed a lawsuit against Motif, claiming that the ingredient manufacturer infringed upon at least one of its patents with its Hemami ingredient, Motif contended before the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office’s judicial body that Impossible’s patents should never have been granted due to the existence of several other patents related to meat substitutes and heme proteins.
In a detailed 26-page ruling, the PTAB addressed the specific concerns raised by Motif and compared Impossible Foods’ patent to other patents in the field. The board concluded that Motif “has not demonstrated a reasonable likelihood of success in proving that at least one of the challenged claims is unpatentable,” and thus declined to review the case further. Although the challenge against Impossible’s patent has concluded, the initial legal dispute in federal court is still ongoing, with both parties continuing to file motions.
In a statement sent via email, Motif FoodWorks expressed confidence in its legal stance and affirmed its intention to contest “Impossible’s aggressive actions through every available avenue.” The company criticized Impossible, claiming, “Impossible is using legally dubious and factually baseless claims to stifle innovation and competition for the sake of their own profits.” Motif further asserted that if Impossible genuinely believed in their mission to “make our global food supply more sustainable,” they would embrace innovators like Motif FoodWorks instead of resorting to litigation. They accused Impossible of following a familiar pattern in Silicon Valley: when innovation fails, litigation takes its place.
Last week, Impossible submitted a motion in the ongoing court case, outlining its arguments and countering Motif’s defense. “Impossible Foods’ allegations sufficiently notify Motif of its infringement, which is all that is required under applicable authority. Motif’s challenge pertains to the validity of Impossible Foods’ allegations rather than their plausibility,” the company articulated in its motion.
As the legal battle unfolds, it is worth noting that both companies are navigating the complexities of the plant-based market, where products like calcitriol and calcium citrate malate are also gaining attention for their potential health benefits. This ongoing dispute highlights not just the competition in the plant-based sector, but also the broader implications for innovation and patent law in food technology. With both sides entrenched in their positions, the case is likely to set important precedents for the future of plant-based food patents.