Corbion NV v. Wti, Inc. — Voluntarily Dismissed After 93 Days
Corbion NV, a global food ingredient company, sued Wti, Inc. in the Southern District of New York alleging infringement of US11696587B2, a patent covering vinegar-based preservation powder technology used in its Verdad product line. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice just 93 days after filing, with each party bearing its own costs.
A rapid voluntary exit in food preservation patent litigation
On 1 October 2023, Corbion NV — a Netherlands-headquartered food ingredient company — filed suit against Wti, Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York. The complaint asserted infringement of US11696587B2, a patent protecting vinegar-based food preservation powder technology commercially embodied in Corbion’s Verdad Powder N6 and Verdad Opti Powder N450 product lines. Judge Vernon S. Broderick presided over the matter.
On 2 January 2024 — just 93 days after filing — Corbion voluntarily dismissed the action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). The dismissal was recorded without prejudice, meaning Corbion’s patent claims were not decided on the merits and the company retains the legal right to refile against Wti on the same patent. Each party agreed to bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs, suggesting no financial settlement was publicly disclosed.
The speed of resolution is notable: the case did not advance to claim construction or substantive motion practice within its 93-day lifespan. This timeline is consistent with early-stage resolution — whether through out-of-court negotiation, a licensing arrangement, or a strategic decision to withdraw. The public record is silent on the precise reason for dismissal, and no settlement terms have been disclosed.
Filing to resolution in 93 days
Resolved in 93 days — well under the median SDNY patent case duration
What the voluntary dismissal without prejudice means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) — plaintiff’s unilateral right to dismiss
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. This is the earliest and cleanest form of voluntary dismissal — it requires no judicial approval and takes effect immediately upon filing. Its use here suggests the case had not yet advanced to a formal defence filing.
No court order requiredWithout prejudice: what the public record does and does not tell us
A dismissal without prejudice means the underlying claims were not adjudicated and Corbion is not barred from refiling. This is distinct from a dismissal with prejudice, which would permanently extinguish the claims. The filing states ‘without prejudice’ explicitly — however, the public record does not disclose whether any private agreement, licence, or settlement was reached between the parties. Both outcomes are legally consistent with this dismissal form.
Refiling rights preservedEach party pays its own costs — a neutral financial outcome
The dismissal stipulation specifies that each party bears its own attorneys’ fees and costs. Under the American Rule, this is the default in federal litigation, so the provision here confirms neither side obtained a fee award. In patent cases, fee-shifting under 35 U.S.C. § 285 requires a finding of an exceptional case — the absence of any such ruling is consistent with the case ending before any substantive court findings.
No § 285 fee award93-day lifespan consistent with early negotiated resolution
Cases that resolve this quickly — before answer, before claim construction — typically reflect one of three scenarios: a private licensing or settlement agreement reached off the record; a plaintiff decision to withdraw pending further investigation; or a defendant action that resolved the commercial dispute without litigation. The neutral cost allocation and without-prejudice status leave all options open for Corbion going forward.
Pre-answer resolutionFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Corbion NV | Company | Global food ingredient company — holder of US11696587B2 (vinegar preservation powders)Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Wti, Inc. | Company | Wti, Inc. — defendant in food preservation patent infringement actionSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jonathon Brugh Lower | Attorney | Counsel for Corbion NVSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | William Paul Deni, Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Corbion NVSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Nicholas John Nowak | Attorney | Counsel for Wti, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Vernon S. Broderick | Chief Judge | New York Southern District Court — Chief JudgeSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Stipulation of dismissal — official text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), indicating Corbion acted before Wti filed an answer or summary judgment motion — the procedural posture consistent with the earliest phase of litigation. The ‘without prejudice’ designation is explicit and legally operative, preserving Corbion’s right to refile. The mutual cost-bearing provision forecloses any fee-shifting argument. No merits finding was made, and the record offers no basis to infer which party’s position was stronger on infringement or validity.
US11696587B2 — Vinegar-Based Food Preservation Powder Technology
US11696587B2 (application number US16/275,987) covers technology in the food preservation space, specifically directed at vinegar-derived powder formulations used as clean-label antimicrobial agents. Corbion’s Verdad Powder N6 and Verdad Opti Powder N450 are commercial embodiments of this technology — ingredients used in processed meat, poultry, and other perishable food categories to extend shelf life without synthetic preservatives. The patent sits at the intersection of food science, fermentation chemistry, and ingredient processing.
For food ingredient competitors, US11696587B2 represents a meaningful freedom-to-operate consideration. Clean-label preservation is a high-growth category as food manufacturers replace traditional preservatives with consumer-friendly alternatives. Corbion’s willingness to file suit — even in a case that resolved quickly — suggests this patent is treated as a core competitive moat. Any company developing or supplying vinegar-based powder preservatives, buffered vinegar systems, or comparable antimicrobial ingredient platforms should conduct a formal FTO analysis against this patent before commercialisation.
Should your product team run an FTO against US11696587B2?
If your company formulates, manufactures, or supplies vinegar-based food preservation ingredients — particularly in powder or dried formats marketed as clean-label antimicrobials — US11696587B2 should be on your FTO checklist. Corbion’s enforcement action against Wti demonstrates that the patent holder is prepared to litigate, and the without-prejudice dismissal means the threat has not been extinguished. Product teams launching into buffered vinegar, fermentation-derived preservation, or competing Verdad-adjacent formats face the highest exposure.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the claim language of US11696587B2, flag dependent claim overlap, and surface the patent family landscape around Corbion’s preservation portfolio. Ongoing claim monitoring will alert your team if Corbion files continuations or divisionals that extend coverage into adjacent formulation spaces — giving R&D and legal teams early warning before a product reaches market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US11696587B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar food ingredient and preservation technology patent cases
PatSnap Eureka tracks related litigation across truck body equipment, vehicle accessories, and comparable infringement actions in the Georgia district system.
What this case signals for the food ingredient IP landscape
Corbion’s swift withdrawal preserves maximum optionality — and signals active enforcement intent around its Verdad preservation portfolio.
Corbion is actively enforcing its food preservation patent portfolio
Filing suit in SDNY against a competitor — even if quickly withdrawn — signals that Corbion treats US11696587B2 as a commercially important enforcement asset. Companies operating in vinegar-based preservation, clean-label antimicrobials, or competing powder formats should treat this patent as an active litigation risk, not a dormant filing.
Without-prejudice dismissal keeps the threat credible for Wti and others
Because the case was dismissed without prejudice, Corbion can refile against Wti at any time within the statute of limitations. Any competitor who receives a similar cease-and-desist or licensing demand should assess whether Corbion’s portfolio is likely to generate repeat enforcement actions — the pattern here suggests yes.
Corbion v Wti — key questions answered
Corbion NV sued Wti, Inc. in the Southern District of New York on 1 October 2023, alleging infringement of US11696587B2 related to vinegar-based food preservation powder technology. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 2 January 2024 after 93 days, with each party bearing its own costs. No merits determination was made.
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means Corbion chose to end the lawsuit before Wti filed an answer, without any court ruling on the merits. ‘Without prejudice’ means Corbion retains the legal right to refile the same claims against Wti in future. The public record does not disclose whether any private settlement or licence was agreed.
Corbion asserted US11696587B2 (application number US16/275,987), a patent covering vinegar-based food preservation powder technology. The patent is commercially associated with Corbion’s Verdad Powder N6 and Verdad Opti Powder N450 product lines, which are clean-label antimicrobial ingredients used in processed food applications.
The products identified in the case are Corbion’s Verdad Powder N6 and Verdad Opti Powder N450 — both vinegar-derived preservation powders used in food manufacturing. These are clean-label antimicrobial ingredients positioned as alternatives to traditional synthetic preservatives in processed meat, poultry, and similar applications.
Yes. Because the dismissal was entered without prejudice, Corbion is not legally barred from refiling the same patent infringement claims against Wti, provided any applicable statute of limitations has not expired. The case ended with no merits ruling, no cost award against either party, and no public disclosure of any settlement agreement that might preclude future action.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.