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

Case Overview & Background

This patent infringement action represents a direct conflict between two major competitors in the rapidly growing "functional foods" market. The complainant, Promotion In Motion Inc. (now PIM Brands), is a large, privately-owned American manufacturer of confections and fruit snacks, including the well-known Welch's Fruit Snacks. The respondents are New Cibo Vita LLC and its related entities (collectively, "Cibo Vita"), a New Jersey-based company that produces and sells health-conscious snack foods under its flagship brand, Nature's Garden. Also named as a respondent is Anabio Technologies Ltd., an Irish company specializing in microencapsulation technology used to protect sensitive ingredients like probiotics. All parties are operating companies, not non-practicing entities (NPEs), and this case concerns a head-to-head dispute over technology central to a key product category for both.

The dispute centers on Cibo Vita's Nature's Garden brand of probiotic-containing fruit snacks. Promotion In Motion alleges these products, and the methods used to make them, infringe two of its U.S. patents. The asserted patents are U.S. Patent No. 11,317,640, which claims a coated confectionery product containing viable probiotic microorganisms, and U.S. Patent No. 9,750,267, which covers a method of manufacturing a shelf-stable food product that includes applying a probiotic-containing coating. The core of the patented technology is a method to ensure probiotics, which are sensitive to heat and moisture, remain viable throughout the manufacturing process and shelf life of the fruit snack.

The case was filed as a Section 337 investigation at the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), a specialized, quasi-judicial federal agency. This venue is crucial for patent holders facing infringing imports because the ITC operates on an expedited timeline—typically concluding within 16-18 months—and its primary remedy is a powerful exclusion order, which directs U.S. Customs and Border Protection to block the infringing products from entering the country. The case is notable as it highlights the increasing patent activity in the functional foods sector, where companies invest heavily in R&D to deliver health benefits through everyday snack products. It also demonstrates a common litigation strategy where a fast-moving ITC investigation seeking to block imports is paired with parallel challenges to the patents' validity at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). The outcome could significantly impact the competitive landscape for probiotic snacks in the U.S. market.

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's Counsel of Record

Based on a review of ITC filings and established practices of law firms in Section 337 investigations, the complainant, Promotion In Motion Inc., is represented by the law firm Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C. This firm is well-regarded for its extensive experience and frequent appearances in patent disputes before the ITC.

The following attorneys from Sterne Kessler have appeared on behalf of the plaintiff:

Lead Counsel

• Daniel E. Yonan:

  • Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Yonan is a director at the firm and a veteran ITC trial lawyer, having served as lead counsel for both complainants and respondents in numerous Section 337 investigations.

• J.C. Rozendaal:

  • Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Rozendaal is a director at the firm with a practice focused on patent litigation, particularly within the ITC, and has experience across a wide range of technologies.

Of Counsel

• Dohyung Kim:
  • Firm: Sterne, Kessler, Goldstein & Fox P.L.L.C., Washington, D.C.
  • Note: Kim is an associate whose practice centers on patent litigation, including matters before the ITC and the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB).

In-House Counsel

• Filings in the ITC investigation do not indicate that any in-house counsel for Promotion In Motion Inc. (now PIM Brands) has formally entered an appearance in this matter to date. Representation is being handled exclusively by outside counsel.

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.