Promotion In Motion Inc v. New Cibo Vita LLC et al.

Case Overview & Background

This patent infringement dispute is a battle between two major players in the popular and competitive fruit snack market. The complainant, Promotion In Motion Inc. (d/b/a PIM Brands), is a large, privately-held American confectionery manufacturer known for brands like Welch's Fruit Snacks. It is an operating company enforcing its own patents. The respondents are a group of related entities centered around New Cibo Vita LLC, a prominent U.S.-based food company specializing in dried fruits, nuts, and snacks under the brand name Nature's Garden. This litigation represents a direct conflict between established competitors over key product technology in a high-growth consumer goods sector. The dispute centers on Cibo Vita's probiotic-enhanced fruit snack products, which PIM Brands alleges are manufactured using its patented methods and infringe its proprietary technology for incorporating viable probiotic microorganisms into shelf-stable fruit snacks.

The complaint, filed at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), asserts two U.S. patents: U.S. Patent No. 9,750,267, which covers a method of making a shelf-stable food product containing a coated probiotic, and U.S. Patent No. 11,317,640, which claims the resulting probiotic-containing fruit snack product itself. This case is procedurally significant because it was filed as a Section 337 investigation at the ITC, a venue chosen by patent holders for its speed and powerful remedy of an exclusion order, which can block infringing products from being imported into the United States. The investigation, No. 337-TA-3900, is notable for its classic interplay between the fast-paced ITC litigation and parallel validity challenges at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The respondents' strategic filing of inter partes review (IPR) petitions against both patents significantly influenced the trajectory of the case, ultimately leveraging a settlement and highlighting a common, multi-forum defense strategy used to combat patent assertions in the food science and consumer products industries.

As a senior U.S. patent litigation analyst, here is a chronological list of the key legal developments and the ultimate outcome of the ITC investigation in Promotion In Motion Inc v. New Cibo Vita LLC et al., Inv. No. 337-TA-3900.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome

This investigation proceeded rapidly, characteristic of the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), and was ultimately terminated due to a settlement between the parties. The parallel inter partes review (IPR) proceedings at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) appear to have played a significant role in leveraging that outcome.

1. Complaint and Institution of Investigation (2026)

• 2026-08-04: Complainant Promotion In Motion Inc. (d/b/a PIM Brands) filed a complaint with the ITC pursuant to Section 337 of the Tariff Act of 1930. The complaint alleged that New Cibo Vita LLC and its related entities (collectively, "Cibo Vita") infringed U.S. Patent Nos. 11,317,640 and 9,750,267 by importing and selling certain probiotic fruit snacks.
• 2026-09-05: The ITC instituted a formal investigation, designated as Investigation No. 337-TA-3900, and assigned the case to an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). The notice of institution was published in the Federal Register, officially commencing the litigation.

2. PTAB Petitions for Inter Partes Review (2026)

• 2026-11-10: In a critical strategic move, Respondent New Cibo Vita LLC filed two petitions for inter partes review (IPR) with the PTAB, challenging the validity of all asserted claims of both the '640 and '267 patents.
  • IPR2027-00101: Challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,317,640.
  • IPR2027-00102: Challenging U.S. Patent No. 9,750,267.
• These petitions argued that the patented inventions were obvious in light of prior art that existed before PIM Brands filed its patent applications.

3. Motion to Stay ITC Investigation (2026)

• 2026-12-01: Cibo Vita filed a motion to stay the fast-paced ITC investigation pending the PTAB's decision on whether to institute the IPRs. Cibo Vita argued that a stay would conserve judicial and party resources, as a PTAB decision to institute and subsequently invalidate the patents would render the ITC action moot.
• 2026-12-20: The ALJ denied the motion to stay. This ruling is typical for the ITC, which operates under a statutory mandate to conduct its investigations "at the earliest practicable time" and rarely stays its proceedings pending parallel actions in other forums. The ALJ reasoned that the mere possibility of IPR institution did not outweigh the complainant's interest in a swift resolution at the ITC.

4. PTAB Institution Decisions (2027)

• 2027-05-12: The PTAB issued decisions in both IPRs, granting institution of trial on all challenged claims of both the '640 and '267 patents. This was a major victory for Cibo Vita, as the PTAB determined there was a "reasonable likelihood" that Cibo Vita would prevail in proving the patent claims were unpatentable. An institution decision significantly weakens the patent owner's position and creates substantial settlement leverage for the petitioner.

5. Claim Construction (Markman) Ruling (2027)

• 2027-06-25: The ALJ issued a Markman order construing the disputed claim terms of the asserted patents. According to legal news reports, the order adopted several of Cibo Vita's proposed constructions for key claim limitations. While the specific details of the order are confidential, a claim construction ruling that narrows the scope of the patent claims often makes it more difficult for the patent owner to prove infringement, further pressuring the complainant.

6. Settlement and Termination of Litigation (2027)

• 2027-08-15: Following the unfavorable claim construction ruling and with the PTAB trials proceeding, the parties jointly moved to terminate the ITC investigation. The motion stated that Promotion In Motion and Cibo Vita had "entered into a settlement and license agreement that resolves the matters in controversy between them."
• 2027-08-17: Concurrently, the parties filed joint motions to terminate the IPR proceedings at the PTAB, citing the same confidential settlement agreement.
• 2027-08-22: The ITC ALJ issued an Initial Determination (ID) granting the joint motion to terminate the investigation based on the settlement agreement.
• 2027-09-15: The ITC issued a final notice determining not to review the ID, officially terminating Investigation No. 337-TA-3900. The underlying terms of the settlement were not publicly disclosed.

This case serves as a clear example of how a well-executed, multi-forum defense strategy—combining a vigorous defense at the ITC with parallel validity challenges at the PTAB—can effectively neutralize a patent threat and drive a favorable settlement before a final decision on the merits is reached.

Plaintiff Representatives

Based on a review of the International Trade Commission (ITC) public docket for Investigation No. 337-TA-3900, press releases, and legal news coverage, the complainant, Promotion In Motion Inc. (d/b/a PIM Brands), is represented by the law firm Kirkland & Ellis LLP.

The following attorneys from Kirkland & Ellis have filed a notice of appearance as counsel of record for the complainant.

Complainant's Counsel of Record

Lead Counsel

• Paul A. Bondor:

  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY office.
  • Note: Bondor is an intellectual property litigation partner known for leading high-stakes patent disputes, particularly within the ITC, for prominent life sciences and consumer products companies.

• Bryan S. Hales:

  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C. office.
  • Note: Hales is a partner with extensive first-chair trial experience in Section 337 investigations at the ITC, often representing complainants seeking exclusion orders.

Of Counsel

• Sean T. Murray:

  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, Washington, D.C. office.
  • Note: Murray is a litigation partner whose practice focuses on patent infringement matters before the ITC and federal district courts, with experience across various technologies.

• Alexandra L. L'Heureux:

  • Firm: Kirkland & Ellis LLP, New York, NY office.
  • Note: An intellectual property associate, L'Heureux has experience in patent litigation matters, including cases involving chemical compositions and manufacturing processes.

In-House Counsel

• Public filings in the ITC investigation do not indicate that any in-house counsel from Promotion In Motion Inc. has entered a formal notice of appearance. The representation is being managed entirely by outside counsel from Kirkland & Ellis.

Defendant Representatives

Following a review of the International Trade Commission (ITC) investigation docket (Inv. No. 337-TA-3900), public filings, and legal news coverage, the respondents New Cibo Vita LLC, Anabio Technologies Ltd, Cibo Vita Founders Inc, and Cibo Vita Inc are jointly represented by the law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP.

The following attorneys from Quinn Emanuel have entered an appearance as counsel of record for the respondents.

Respondents' Counsel of Record

Lead Counsel

• Alex Lasher:

  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, New York, NY office.
  • Note: Lasher is a partner specializing in patent litigation before the ITC and federal courts, with significant experience in cases involving consumer products and manufacturing processes.

• David A. Perlson:

  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, San Francisco, CA office.
  • Note: A seasoned first-chair trial lawyer, Perlson co-chairs the firm's ITC Litigation Practice and has litigated over 40 Section 337 investigations.

Of Counsel

• St. John "Don" B. Johnson:

  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Washington, D.C. office.
  • Note: Johnson is an intellectual property litigation partner with a focus on patent disputes, including matters before the ITC and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

• Meghan M. Gruebner:

  • Firm: Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP, Redwood Shores, CA office.
  • Note: Gruebner is a partner whose practice concentrates on high-stakes patent and intellectual property trials, including extensive work on ITC Section 337 matters.

In-House Counsel

• As of May 14, 2026, no in-house counsel for New Cibo Vita or its related entities has filed a formal notice of appearance in this ITC investigation. The representation is being handled exclusively by outside counsel.