1:25-cv-04544
S.D.N.Y.Jun 17, 2025Background
- Plaintiffs (OWN Your Hunger LLC, Lighten Up Foods LLC, and Defiant Foods LLC) are low-calorie food companies dependent on an ingredient called EPG, a patented fat substitute made only by defendant Epogee LLC.
- Defendant Linus Technology (d/b/a "David Protein") acquired Epogee on May 29, 2025, and Peter Rahal is David Protein's controlling person.
- Following the acquisition, Epogee announced restriction of EPG sales to existing customers, which plaintiffs allege began to exclude them and favored David Protein's products.
- Plaintiffs claim these actions violate antitrust law by creating an artificial monopoly in the EPG or low-calorie indulgence food markets, seeking a temporary restraining order (TRO) and preliminary injunction (PI) to restore their access to EPG.
- Defendants argue EPG is a patented product, there are alternative fat substitutes, sales strategy changed for business reasons, and plaintiffs failed to secure long-term contracts for EPG.
- The court denied the TRO for failure to establish a likelihood of success on the merits due to plaintiffs not plausibly defining the relevant product market.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relevant Product Market Definition | Market is EPG supply or low-calorie indulgence foods; no substitutes available | EPG is patented, other substitutes exist, not a unique market | Plaintiffs failed to plausibly define the market |
| Antitrust Violation: Restraint of Trade | Acquisition creates monopoly, excludes competitors by restricting EPG access | Change due to business strategy; no obligation to continue prior sales | No likelihood of success on merits |
| Antitrust Violation: Monopoly/Monopolization | Exclusive control of EPG constitutes illegal monopolization | Patent confers lawful control; alternatives exist; no monopoly established | Plaintiffs failed to show monopoly power |
| Entitlement to Emergency Relief (TRO/PI standard) | Denial of EPG supply causes irreparable harm and anti-competitive effects | No irreparable harm; business rationale; plaintiffs delayed seeking relief | TRO denied; no basis for emergency relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7 (TRO/PI is an extraordinary remedy not awarded as of right)
- United States v. Grinnell Corp., 384 U.S. 563 (Monopolization claim requires monopoly power in a defined market)
- Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294 (Defining relevant market requires analysis of reasonable interchangeability)
- Walker Process Equip., Inc. v. Food Mach. & Chem. Corp., 382 U.S. 172 (Patent does not automatically confer antitrust monopoly; substitutes must be considered)