Promotion In Motion Inc v. Anabio Tech Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Promotion In Motion, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: AnaBio Technologies, LTD (Ireland)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP
• Case Identification: 2:26-cv-00273, E.D. Tex., 04/02/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant is a foreign corporation that has committed acts of infringement in the district, including through sales of the accused products.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's supply of encapsulated probiotics for use in "Yoggies" brand fruit snacks infringes patents related to a multi-layered, shelf-stable, probiotic-containing confectionery.
• Technical Context: The technology addresses the challenge of incorporating live, heat- and moisture-sensitive probiotic cultures into high-moisture, shelf-stable food products like fruit snacks.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges Defendant had knowledge of the asserted patents since at least April 2024, citing International Search Reports issued during the prosecution of patent applications on which Defendant's CEO is a named co-inventor. Plaintiff further alleges that a patent publication corresponding to one of the asserted patents was cited in an Information Disclosure Statement submitted to the USPTO in September 2025 for a U.S. application also naming Defendant's CEO as a co-inventor.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-10-24	Earliest Priority Date for '267 and '640 Patents
2017-09-05	U.S. Patent No. 9,750,267 Issues
2022-05-03	U.S. Patent No. 11,317,640 Issues
2023	Alleged Launch of Accused "Yoggies" Product
2024-04-12	Defendant Allegedly Notified of Patents via International Search Report
2024-05-12	Defendant Allegedly Notified of Patents via International Search Report
2025-09	Patent Publication for '267 Patent Allegedly Cited in Defendant-Related IDS
2026-04-02	Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 9,750,267 - "Fruit Snack with Probiotics and Method of Manufacturing a Fruit Snack with Probiotics" (Issued Sep. 5, 2017)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the technical challenge of creating a shelf-stable food product, like a fruit snack, that contains viable probiotic cultures Compl. ¶20 '267 Patent, col. 2:6-17 Conventional probiotic foods such as yogurt require refrigeration due to high moisture content, which degrades the live cultures over time at room temperature Compl. ¶20 '267 Patent, col. 2:9-14
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a multi-layered food product designed to isolate the probiotics from the high-moisture core Compl. ¶21 It consists of a high-moisture fruit "center," a "barrier layer" that substantially prevents moisture from migrating outward, and an "outer layer" containing the heat-sensitive probiotics Compl. ¶22 '267 Patent, abstract '267 Patent, col. 5:12-24 A key manufacturing step involves cooling the center before applying the outer probiotic layer to prevent heat from destroying the live cultures Compl. ¶21 '267 Patent, col. 5:35-42 This structure is depicted in Figure 1 of the patent Compl. ¶22
• Technical Importance: This approach allows for the creation of a mass-market, shelf-stable confectionery product that delivers the health benefits of probiotics, which were previously largely confined to refrigerated dairy products or dry supplements Compl. ¶29

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-15, 20-31, 36-42, 44-47, 50-60, and 63-66 Compl. ¶39 Independent claim 20 is representative of the product claims:

• A food product, comprising:
• a center having a substantial moisture content;
• a barrier layer disposed over the center, the barrier layer adapted to substantially prevent migration of moisture from the center of the food product; and
• an outer layer disposed over the barrier layer, the outer layer containing probiotic cultures.

Independent claim 1 is representative of the method claims, reciting steps of combining ingredients for a slurry, cooking it to produce a center, applying a barrier layer, allowing the center to cool, and applying an outer layer with probiotics '267 Patent, col. 9:15-34

U.S. Patent No. 11,317,640 - "Fruit Snack with Probiotics and Method of Manufacturing a Fruit Snack with Probiotics" (Issued May 3, 2022)

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The '640 patent, a continuation of the family that produced the '267 Patent, addresses the same technical problem: preserving the viability of probiotic cultures in a high-moisture, shelf-stable fruit snack product Compl. ¶20 '640 Patent, col. 2:10-17
• The Patented Solution: The solution is materially the same as that described in the '267 patent: a multi-layer structure comprising a fruit center, a moisture-blocking barrier layer, and a probiotic-containing outer layer, with a manufacturing process that involves cooling the center before applying the outer layer Compl. ¶21 '640 Patent, abstract '640 Patent, col. 5:9-28 The patent's Figure 1 illustrates this layered composition Compl. ¶22
• Technical Importance: The patent provides continued protection for the core technological solution enabling the combination of shelf-stable fruit confections and live probiotics Compl. ¶29

Key Claims at a Glance

The complaint asserts infringement of claims 1-3 and 6-20 Compl. ¶52 Independent claim 1 is a process claim with the following essential elements:

• A process of manufacturing a food product, comprising the steps of:
• combining a plurality of ingredients to produce a slurry;
• cooking the slurry to produce a center for the food product;
• applying a barrier layer to the center of the food product;
• allowing the center of the food product to cool; and
• applying an outer layer over the barrier layer applied to the center of the food product.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The accused products are Cibo Vita's coated confectionery products sold under the "Nature's Garden" brand, collectively referred to as "Yoggies" Compl. ¶33 Specific product variations are named, including Probiotic Strawberry Yoggies and Probiotic Mixed Berry Yoggies Compl. ¶33

Functionality and Market Context

• Yoggies are described as yogurt-covered fruit snack products containing probiotics Compl. ¶5 The complaint alleges that the Yoggies product is a "copycat" that incorporates Defendant AnaBio's encapsulated probiotic product into a structure that embodies the patented design Compl. ¶6 Compl. ¶30 The complaint alleges that, like the patented invention, Yoggies have a fruit center, a barrier layer that protects the probiotic cultures from the fruit center's moisture, and an outer yogurt coating containing the probiotics Compl. ¶6 Compl. ¶30 An advertisement for Yoggies, reproduced in the complaint, states that the probiotics are "microencapsulated in our patented system, ensuring the power of each probiotic is maintained as it passes through your digestive system" Compl., p. 13, Fig. 4 The complaint also provides a cross-sectional photograph of an "Exemplary Yoggie" purporting to show its internal structure Compl., p. 12, Fig. 2

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Defendant AnaBio infringes by supplying its encapsulated probiotic product to Cibo Vita for use in the Yoggies products Compl. ¶5 Compl. ¶7 The core of the infringement theory is that the final Yoggies product, as manufactured and sold by Cibo Vita with AnaBio's assistance and components, contains all the elements of the asserted claims Compl. ¶30 The complaint references claim chart exhibits (Exhibits L and M) that were not attached to the publicly filed document Compl. ¶40 Compl. ¶53 Therefore, the following analysis is a prose summary of the narrative infringement theory.

'267 and '640 Patent Infringement Allegations

Plaintiff's infringement theory rests on mapping the three-part structure of the asserted claims onto the physical structure of the Yoggies product. The complaint alleges, upon information and belief, that each Yoggie includes a fruit "center," a "barrier layer" that prevents moisture migration, and an "outer layer" containing probiotics Compl. ¶30

The complaint presents several pieces of evidence to support this theory. It provides a screenshot from a retailer website for the accused "Yoggies Mixed Berry Probiotic" product, establishing its sale in the United States Compl., p. 8 To visualize the alleged infringing structure, the complaint includes cross-sectional photographs of a Yoggie, which appear to show a darker core surrounded by a lighter-colored coating Compl., p. 12, Figs. 2-3 Further, an advertisement for Yoggies is provided, which describes a "creamy yogurt coating" over a fruit base and mentions a "patented system" for microencapsulation to maintain probiotic viability Compl., p. 13, Fig. 4 Plaintiff alleges that Defendant specifically designed and supplied its probiotic product for use in this allegedly infringing structure Compl. ¶6

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Evidentiary Question: A primary question will be whether discovery confirms the existence and function of a distinct "barrier layer" in the accused Yoggies products that is separate from the fruit center and the outer yogurt coating. The complaint's cross-sectional photos do not explicitly delineate three separate layers.
  • Scope Question: The analysis may turn on whether the accused product's "microencapsulation technology," which Defendant supplies, is itself the "barrier layer" or if it is merely a component of the "outer layer." The claim requires the "barrier layer" to be disposed over the center, and the "outer layer" to be disposed over the barrier layer.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "barrier layer" (e.g., '267 Patent, claim 20)

• Context and Importance: This term is the central structural element of the invention, responsible for solving the technical problem of moisture migration. The existence and definition of this layer in the accused product will be critical to the infringement analysis. Practitioners may focus on whether this term requires a structurally distinct layer or if it can be a functional property of an interface between the center and outer coating.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claims define the layer functionally as being "adapted to substantially prevent migration of moisture" '267 Patent, col. 10:41-43 This functional language may support an argument that any feature that achieves this purpose, regardless of its specific composition, meets the limitation.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification provides specific examples of the barrier layer, such as a "commercial yogurt coating," "zein protein, CMC gum, xanthan gum, dark chocolate and milk chocolate" '267 Patent, col. 5:19-22 Figure 1 also depicts the barrier layer (14) as a distinct structural element between the center (12) and the outer layer (16) '267 Patent, Fig. 1 This could support a narrower construction requiring a compositionally and structurally distinct layer.

• The Term: "allowing the center of the food product to cool" (e.g., '640 Patent, claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This is a key step in the asserted method claims, intended to protect the heat-sensitive probiotics in the outer layer from damage. The infringement analysis for the method claims will depend on whether the manufacturing process for Yoggies includes a distinct cooling step after the center is formed but before the probiotic coating is applied.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself is general and does not specify a particular temperature or duration, only that the center is allowed "to cool" '640 Patent, col. 10:20-21 This could be read to cover any process where a temperature reduction naturally occurs before the next step.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification states the center is cooled "preferably to room temperature" to "prevent the destruction of a meaningful amount of the probiotic cultures upon application" '640 Patent, col. 5:37-40 This language could be used to argue that the cooling step must be a deliberate and significant temperature reduction to meet the purpose articulated in the patent.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement Compl. ¶7 The inducement theory is based on allegations that AnaBio knowingly supplied its encapsulated probiotic product to Cibo Vita with the specific intent that it be incorporated into the infringing Yoggies product Compl. ¶31 Compl. ¶48 The complaint alleges AnaBio provided technical design information and promotional materials to Cibo Vita to facilitate the infringement Compl. ¶48 Contributory infringement is alleged on the basis that AnaBio's encapsulated probiotics are a material part of the invention, are specially adapted for use in the infringing product, and have no substantial non-infringing uses Compl. ¶37 Compl. ¶47
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant's alleged pre-suit knowledge of the patents Compl. ¶7 Compl. ¶49 This allegation is supported by specific references to International Search Reports from April and May 2024 and an Information Disclosure Statement from September 2025, all of which allegedly cited the asserted patents or their publications and were related to patent applications on which AnaBio's CEO was a co-inventor Compl. ¶8 Compl. ¶43 Compl. ¶56

VII. Analyst's Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

1. A central evidentiary question will be one of physical structure: Can Plaintiff prove through discovery and expert testing that the accused Yoggies products contain a distinct "barrier layer," separate from the fruit center and the outer coating, that performs the claimed function of substantially preventing moisture migration?
2. A key issue for indirect infringement will be one of knowledge and intent: Will the cited International Search Reports and Information Disclosure Statements be sufficient to establish that Defendant had the requisite knowledge of the patents and specific intent to induce Cibo Vita's alleged direct infringement?
3. The case may also turn on a question of claim construction: Will the term "barrier layer" be construed narrowly to require a specific type of coating as described in the specification's embodiments, or more broadly to cover any functional means of moisture-blocking at the interface between the product's core and its outer layer?