The Legal Dispute Over EPG: David Protein Responds to Monopolization Allegations

The legal battle surrounding access to Epogee’s innovative fat substitute, EPG, has taken a significant turn this week. David Protein filed new court documents disputing allegations that it is monopolizing the ingredient and stifling competition.

The controversy ignited after David Protein acquired Epogee on May 29. Subsequently, three competing firms, unable to access EPG, instituted legal action against David Protein. They accuse the company of deliberately excluding competitors, thereby fostering an artificial monopoly.

In the wake of these developments, several smaller companies have submitted sworn statements detailing the adverse impact they’ve experienced after losing their access to EPG in recent weeks.

David Protein contends that it is not obligated to continue selling EPG to firms that have not established long-term supply agreements. The company emphasizes that formulators have an “abundance” of alternatives when it comes to fats and fat substitutes to replace EPG.

However, the plaintiffs underscore that David Protein has not made any proposals for long-term supply agreements or expressed a willingness to negotiate volume commitments, stressing that their products and production processes are “entirely” reliant on the unique properties of EPG.

In an initial ruling, the presiding judge appeared to support David Protein on several points. Nevertheless, the plaintiffs—comprising OWN Your Hunger, Lighten Up Foods, and Defiant Foods—have since submitted two amended complaints, refining their arguments.

Defining the Monopolization Argument

A crucial aspect of the plaintiffs’ case is their assertion that the market David Protein aims to monopolize extends beyond the protein bar or low-calorie food sectors. Instead, they argue it pertains specifically to the “global market for EPG supply.” They further claim that EPG—a modified fat containing just 0.7 calories per gram—cannot be easily substituted in brands that depend heavily on its unique attributes.

Business Practices Under Scrutiny

David Protein’s latest court filing states that just because Epogee previously sold EPG to the plaintiffs, it does not create an obligation to continue such sales indefinitely. The company asserts, “The fundamental problem with plaintiffs’ claims is that they are trying to dress up as an antitrust monopolization suit what is actually just a case of bad business planning—failing to secure long-term supply contracts for an ingredient that plaintiffs now say is vital to their food businesses.”

Furthermore, David Protein points out that Epogee holds four patents concerning the EPG production process. They assert that according to established patent law, patent holders are not compelled to sell their products or license third parties for use.

“Plaintiffs’ decision to rely on EPG instead of available alternatives does not obligate Epogee to sell EPG to them or any other potential buyer. As patent owners, the defendants are free to choose whether to sell EPG solely to non-competitors or to deny sales entirely,” the filing states.

Details of the Case

This legal matter is recorded as OWN Your Hunger, Lighten Up Foods, and Defiant Foods vs. Linus Technology (operating as David Protein), Epogee, and Peter Rahal, and it was filed in the Southern District of New York on June 2, 2025. The case number is 1:25-cv-04544.