Judge Dismisses Antitrust Suit Over Alt-Fat Ingredient

A federal judge tossed claims that David Protein used its acquisition of Epogee to shut rivals out of the EPG ingredient market.

Updated on Nov. 4, 2026 in Consumer Goods

Judge Dismisses Antitrust Suit Over Alt-Fat Ingredient

Live Poll

Do you trust big food companies to not block smaller rivals from key ingredients?

U.S. District Judge Victor Marrero dismissed an antitrust lawsuit against David Protein over its control of EPG, a patented fat-replacement ingredient made by Epogee. The judge found the plaintiffs had not plausibly defined the relevant product market.

Why it matters

The ruling leaves the consolidation of a specialized food ingredient under one supplier intact, a signal for how courts may treat patent-backed supply disputes in the consumer goods sector. Smaller brands that depend on a single ingredient supplier face limited legal recourse when access is cut off.

EPG contains 0.7 calories per gram, a figure cited in the litigation over its supply. The order does not indicate whether plaintiffs plan to appeal or amend their complaint.

The players

David Protein

David Protein is the company that acquired Epogee and controls access to the patented ingredient EPG used by several protein bar makers.

Judge Victor Marrero

Judge Victor Marrero is a federal judge who presided over the case and found the plaintiffs had not plausibly defined the relevant product market.

Lighten Up Foods

Lighten Up Foods is a food company that was one of three former Epogee customers suing David Protein and later settled its claims with the company.

The details

The lawsuit was filed in 2025 by three Epogee customers, OWN Your Hunger, Lighten Up Foods and Defiant Foods, after David Protein acquired Epogee. The plaintiffs alleged the company excluded competitors and created an artificial monopoly in the high-CFP protein bar segment, while David Protein said formulators have many alternatives to EPG and it had no obligation to keep supplying a patented ingredient without long-term contracts.

2025: Litigation began after David Protein acquired Epogee.
Over a year: The case proceeded before the final dismissal order.

Market Landscape

The ruling applies the Sherman Act's market-definition requirement to a single-supplier dispute over a patented food ingredient. It shows that a plaintiff must plausibly define the relevant market before a monopolization claim can proceed, even in a niche protein bar segment.

Shoppers are unlikely to see immediate changes in protein bar pricing or availability from this ruling. Brands that rely on EPG will continue to depend on David Protein's supply terms, which may affect future product formulations.

The takeaway

Companies that build products around a single patented ingredient should secure long-term supply contracts, since this ruling shows that losing access may not be remedied through antitrust claims.