Patent Lawsuit Against Stevia Suppliers

PureCircle USA, Inc. a subsidiary of PureCircle Ltd. and PureCircle, Sdn Bhd, which is based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia has filed a complaint in the U.S. District Court against Sweegen, Inc. claiming that Sweegen’s and Blue California’s Bestevia® are infringing its patent (U.S. Patent No. 9,243,273) which is a method for making Rebaudioside X (Reb-M) is a sweetener derived from Stevia Plant. It was claimed in the lawsuit by PureCircle that Bestevia Rebaudioside M is made by converting Rebaudioside D to Rebaudioside X, also known as Reb M, by using an enzyme called UDP-glucosyltransferase. According to the lawsuit, PureCircle owns or co-owns 77 U.S. patents and is the major producer of stevia globally and due to high demand of sweeteners in the market they are planning to increase the production by 200%.[1]

Sweegen is engaged in selling zero-calorie, Non-GMO Project verified, plant-based Reb-M and Reb-D for use in the food and the beverage industry. The products offered by companies for using stevia sweetners include carbonated beverages, juices, yogurts, ice-creams, nutritional foods, and confectionary goods. Sweegen, Inc. holds 13 patents along with 130 pending patent applications worldwide regarding stevia sweeteners and is focused on providing next generation stevia sweeteners by including at least 7 novel methods for producing plant-based, Non-GMO, Reb M.[2] The technology is used to make Reb M, which is found sparingly in the stevia leaf and is used in reducing sugar applications like beverages, dairy products and other foods. According to the lawsuit, the patent was issued on 16th January, 2016 and Sweegen on Feb. 21, 2017 announced the commercialization of its Bestevia Rebaudioside M and described the process for making it as a “proprietary and patent pending bioconversion” and also an “enzymatic conversion”. The lawsuit further said that SweeGen has an exclusive license agreement with Conagen, which owns U.S. Patent No. 10,023,604 and the patent involves method for converting Reb D to Reb M. The lawsuit said that based on information received, it is derived that defendants have committed infringement buy making, using, selling, offering for sale, importing, advertising and/or promoting products in the district and the state of California that infringes one or more claims of the patent-in-suit. It is presumed that SweeGen will definitely defend and protect strong IP position against the competitor for the benefits of global customers.

Author: Ms. Deepika Sharma, Sr. Patent Associate and Rishabh, Intern at Khurana & Khurana, Advocates and IP Attorneys. In case of any queries please contact/write back to us at deepika@iiprd.com.

References:

[1]https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/12535-stevia-suppliers-face-off-in-patent-lawsuit

[2]https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/sweegens-statement-regarding-purecircle-lawsuit-300715090.html

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

thirteen − one =

Archives

  • October 2021
  • September 2021
  • August 2021
  • July 2021
  • June 2021
  • May 2021
  • April 2021
  • March 2021
  • February 2021
  • January 2021
  • December 2020
  • November 2020
  • October 2020
  • September 2020
  • August 2020
  • July 2020
  • June 2020
  • May 2020
  • April 2020
  • March 2020
  • February 2020
  • January 2020
  • December 2019
  • November 2019
  • October 2019
  • September 2019
  • August 2019
  • July 2019
  • June 2019
  • May 2019
  • April 2019
  • March 2019
  • February 2019
  • January 2019
  • December 2018
  • November 2018
  • October 2018
  • September 2018
  • August 2018
  • July 2018
  • June 2018
  • May 2018
  • April 2018
  • March 2018
  • February 2018
  • January 2018
  • December 2017
  • November 2017
  • October 2017
  • September 2017
  • August 2017
  • July 2017
  • June 2017
  • May 2017
  • April 2017
  • March 2017
  • February 2017
  • January 2017
  • December 2016
  • November 2016
  • October 2016
  • September 2016
  • August 2016
  • July 2016
  • June 2016
  • May 2016
  • April 2016
  • March 2016
  • February 2016
  • January 2016
  • December 2015
  • November 2015
  • October 2015
  • September 2015
  • August 2015
  • July 2015
  • June 2015
  • May 2015
  • April 2015
  • March 2015
  • February 2015
  • January 2015
  • December 2014
  • November 2014
  • October 2014
  • September 2014
  • August 2014
  • July 2014
  • June 2014
  • May 2014
  • April 2014
  • March 2014
  • February 2014
  • January 2014
  • December 2013
  • November 2013
  • October 2013
  • September 2013
  • August 2013
  • July 2013
  • June 2013
  • May 2013
  • April 2013
  • March 2013
  • February 2013
  • January 2013
  • December 2012
  • November 2012
  • September 2012
  • August 2012
  • July 2012
  • June 2012
  • May 2012
  • April 2012
  • March 2012
  • February 2012
  • January 2012
  • December 2011
  • November 2011
  • October 2011
  • September 2011
  • August 2011
  • July 2011
  • June 2011
  • May 2011
  • April 2011
  • March 2011
  • February 2011
  • January 2011
  • December 2010
  • September 2010
  • July 2010
  • June 2010
  • May 2010
  • April 2010