Book a demo
Corbion NV v. WTI Inc. — Antimicrobial Food Preservation Patent Dispute | PatSnap
Explore in Eureka
Case ID1:23-cv-00144
FiledOct 2023
ClosedJan 2024
Patent Litigation

Corbion NV v. WTI Inc. — Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice After 93 Days

Corbion NV, the Dutch food ingredient company, filed a patent infringement action against WTI Inc. in Georgia over its dried vinegar and antimicrobial preservation powder technology covered by US11696587B2. The case closed in just 93 days after Corbion filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice before the defendant had answered, leaving the door open for refiling.

Resolution time
93days
Resolved in 93 days — well under the median time-to-termination for district court patent cases
Patents asserted
1
US11696587B2 — dried vinegar antimicrobial food preservation powder technology
Outcome
Voluntary dismissal
Without prejudice — Corbion may refile the same claims against WTI Inc. in the future
Cost ruling
Own costs
Each party bears its own costs and fees except as otherwise agreed between the parties
Published by PatSnap Insights Team · Verified by PatSnap Eureka Data
Case overview

Swift voluntary exit in a food preservation patent dispute

On 2 October 2023, Corbion NV — the Netherlands-based food ingredient company — filed a patent infringement complaint against WTI Inc. in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Georgia. The action centred on US11696587B2, a patent relating to dried vinegar and antimicrobial powder technology, with specific products at issue including Corbion’s Verdad Powder N6, NatureIn DV, and Verdad Opti Powder N450 vinegar formulations. The case was represented on the plaintiff side by Christopher A. Cosper of Hull Barrett, PC.

The case closed on 3 January 2024 — just 93 days after filing — when Corbion filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The court confirmed that dismissal was procedurally proper because WTI Inc. had not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The court ordered each party to bear its own costs and fees, except as otherwise agreed, and formally closed the matter.

A 93-day resolution is notably swift for a patent infringement action and suggests the dispute may have been resolved through private negotiation or that Corbion elected to withdraw for strategic reasons — potentially to refile in a different venue or following a settlement in principle not reflected in the public record. Because dismissal was without prejudice, no findings of infringement, validity, or liability were made, and the public record does not reveal the underlying commercial drivers of the early exit.

Case at a glance
Case no.1:23-cv-00144
PlaintiffCorbion NV
DefendantWti, Inc.
CourtGeorgia Southern
Judge/
FiledOctober 2, 2023
ClosedJanuary 3, 2024
Duration93 days
OutcomeVoluntary dismissal
Verdict causeInfringement Action
BasisVoluntary dismissal
Prior Art Intelligence
See what prior art exists on this patent.
Eureka scans millions of patents and papers to surface prior art that may have invalidated these claims before costly litigation begins.
Check Prior Art
Case data sourced from PACER / Georgia Southern District Court via PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore similar cases ↗
Case timeline

Filing to resolution in 93 days

Resolved in 93 days — well under the median time-to-termination for district court patent cases

Case timeline: Complaint filed May 13 2025, NOV–DEC — 93 days total Horizontal timeline showing the three key events in Corbion NV v Wti, Inc. from filing to voluntary dismissal. Source: PACER, Georgia Southern District Court. OCT 2 2023 Complaint filed NOV–DEC 2023 Pre-trial proceedings JAN 3 2024 Dismissed voluntary 93 DAYS TOTAL
Dismissal terms

Voluntary dismissal without prejudice — what it means for both parties

Legal mechanism

Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — dismissal as of right

Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may voluntarily dismiss a case without a court order simply by filing a notice of dismissal, provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The court confirmed this standard was met here. This is the earliest and lowest-friction exit available to a plaintiff in US federal litigation — no judicial approval is required and no findings are made on the merits.

No court approval needed
Prejudice status

Without prejudice — the distinction matters

A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims in the future, subject to applicable statutes of limitations. A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ would permanently bar refiling. The court’s order here is explicitly without prejudice, meaning Corbion retains the option to reassert infringement claims based on US11696587B2 against WTI Inc. The public record does not disclose whether a settlement or licence agreement was reached privately.

Corbion may refile
Cost ruling

Each party bears its own costs

The court’s order specifies that the parties shall bear their own costs and fees ‘except as otherwise agreed.’ This carve-out — ‘except as otherwise agreed’ — is consistent with an undisclosed private settlement or licence arrangement that may include financial terms not visible in the public record. In the absence of a merits ruling, neither party can claim a fee award under 35 U.S.C. § 285, which requires an exceptional case finding.

Possible private terms
Defendant posture

WTI Inc. never answered the complaint

The case closed before WTI Inc. filed any responsive pleading. This means no invalidity defences, non-infringement positions, or counterclaims appear in the public record. The absence of any defendant-side legal representation or filing in the docket is notable — it may suggest WTI Inc. engaged in direct negotiations with Corbion rather than mounting a formal legal defence, or that the dispute resolved quickly enough to make a formal response unnecessary.

No merits adjudicated
Legal analysis based on PACER docket records for case 1:23-cv-00144 and PatSnap Eureka litigation intelligence Search PatSnap Eureka ↗
Parties and representation

Full party and counsel information

RoleNameTypeDetail
PlaintiffCorbion NVCompanyDutch food ingredient company — holder of US11696587B2 (dried vinegar technology)Search in Eureka ↗
DefendantWti, Inc.CompanyWTI Inc. — defendant in food preservation patent infringement action, GeorgiaSearch in Eureka ↗
Plaintiff counselChristopher A. CosperAttorneyCounsel for Corbion NVSearch in Eureka ↗
Presiding judgeJudge /Chief JudgeGeorgia Southern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗
Official verdict

Stipulation of dismissal — official text

“Before the Court is Plaintiff’s notice of dismissal without prejudice. (Doc. 9.) Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss a case without a court order by filing "a notice of dismissal before the opposing party serves either an answer or a motion for summary judgment." This motion was filed prior to Defendant serving an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Upon due consideration, the Court finds dismissal proper under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. The Parties shall bear their own costs and fees except as otherwise agreed.”
Source: PACER Docket, Case 1:23-cv-00144, Georgia Southern District Court · Filed January 3, 2024

The court’s order is narrow and procedural: it confirms only that the requirements of FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) were satisfied and formally closes the case. No findings were made on infringement, validity, or damages. The ‘except as otherwise agreed’ cost carve-out is legally significant — it preserves the effect of any privately negotiated financial arrangement between the parties without disclosing its terms. For practitioners, this order neither strengthens nor weakens US11696587B2 as an enforcement asset.

PACER case 1:23-cv-00144 · Public docket record Explore in Eureka ↗
Patent at issue

US11696587B2 — Dried Vinegar Antimicrobial Food Preservation Technology

Publication No.US11696587B2
Application No.US16/275987
Patent details
AssigneeCorbion NV
ProductVerdad Powder N6 / NatureIn DV / Verdad Opti Powder N450 — dried vinegar antimicrobial preservation
Publication typeB2 — grant (with prior publication)
Cited in actionOctober 2, 2023

US11696587B2, filed under application number US16/275987, protects technology in the dried vinegar and antimicrobial food preservation powder space. The patent is asserted in connection with Corbion’s Verdad Powder N6, NatureIn DV, and Verdad Opti Powder N450 product lines — commercially positioned as clean-label antimicrobial solutions for processed food applications. The technology addresses a growing market demand for non-synthetic preservative systems that maintain shelf life and food safety while meeting clean-label consumer requirements.

For the food ingredient sector, this patent represents a strategically significant asset in the clean-label preservation category, which has seen accelerating commercial activity as food manufacturers reformulate away from synthetic preservatives. Corbion’s decision to assert this patent in litigation — even briefly — signals active enforcement intent. Competitors developing or marketing dried vinegar, fermentation-derived antimicrobials, or functionally equivalent powder preservation systems in the US market should treat US11696587B2 as a live risk asset and conduct claim-level analysis before product commercialisation.

Patent data sourced from USPTO via PatSnap Eureka patent database Search patent records in Eureka ↗
Freedom to operate

Should your team run an FTO against US11696587B2?

Any R&D team or product manager working on dried vinegar formulations, clean-label antimicrobial powders, or fermentation-derived food preservation systems for the US market should treat US11696587B2 as a priority FTO target. The patent has been actively asserted, retains full validity presumption, and covers a product category — powder preservation systems — that spans a wide range of processed food applications including meat, poultry, bakery, and ready-to-eat formats.

PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claims of US11696587B2 against your product specifications and flag design-around opportunities or prior art of interest. Claim monitoring alerts will notify your team if Corbion or related entities file continuation patents or assert the patent in new proceedings — giving you early warning before enforcement escalates to litigation affecting your commercial launch timeline.

PatSnap Eureka FTO Search

Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11696587B2 to assess your product’s exposure

Run FTO in Eureka →
Related litigation

Similar patent cases in food preservation and antimicrobial ingredient technology

PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.

🔍
Access 40+ similar cases in PatSnap Eureka
Corbion NV patent enforcement history, Georgia Southern case history, Corbion NV’s full IP portfolio, and comparable case analysis
Dried vinegar patent suitsCorbion prior litigationClean-label IP disputesFRCP 41 early dismissals
Unlock similar cases in Eureka →
Strategic implications

What this case signals for the food ingredient IP landscape

A rapid voluntary dismissal in a food preservation patent case rarely signals the end of a dispute — it often marks a transition to a private resolution.

Voluntary dismissal without prejudice is a negotiating instrument

Patent plaintiffs frequently use Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissals as leverage — filing suit to initiate commercial negotiations, then withdrawing once terms are reached. The 93-day timeline and absence of any defendant filing here is consistent with that playbook. Companies in the food ingredient and antimicrobial preservation space should treat such dismissals as potential signals of private licensing activity rather than abandonment of enforcement.

US11696587B2 remains a live enforcement risk for competitors

Because the case was dismissed without prejudice and no invalidity or non-infringement findings were made, US11696587B2 retains its full presumption of validity. Any company developing or marketing dried vinegar, antimicrobial food preservation powders, or comparable clean-label preservation technologies should assess their exposure to this patent before launching or scaling products in the US market.

🔒
Full strategic analysis in PatSnap Eureka
Includes sector IP trends, Judge Treadwell’s case history, and FTO risk assessment for the truck equipment space
Corbion enforcement historyUS11696587B2 claim scopeComparable dismissal patterns
Unlock full analysis →
Analysis powered by PatSnap Eureka Litigation Intelligence Explore in Eureka ↗
Frequently asked questions

Corbion v Wti — key questions answered

Still have questions? PatSnap Eureka can answer them instantly from patent and litigation data. Ask Eureka ↗
PatSnap Eureka

Track food ingredient patent enforcement with PatSnap Eureka

Run an FTO analysis against US11696587B2 before launching preservation products in the US market. Set claim monitoring alerts to catch new filings from Corbion or enforcement activity before it reaches litigation.

Ask anything about this case.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.
Powered by PatSnap Eureka
Link copied to clipboard

Help us improve this page

Found incorrect or outdated information? Let us know and we'll get it fixed.