Impossible Foods Federal Circuit Appeal Dismissed in 76 Days — Case 24-2217
Impossible Foods Inc. brought a patentability challenge to the Federal Circuit over US9943096B2 — a patent covering methods and compositions for affecting the flavor and aroma profile of consumables. The parties agreed to dismiss the appeal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), closing the case in just 76 days without a merits ruling.
Impossible Foods exits Federal Circuit appeal by joint agreement
On August 14, 2024, Impossible Foods Inc. filed an appeal at the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as Case 24-2217, challenging the patentability of US9943096B2 — a patent directed to methods and compositions for affecting the flavor and aroma profile of consumables. The appeal followed an invalidity or cancellation action, consistent with a post-grant review or inter partes review proceeding before the USPTO’s Patent Trial and Appeal Board.
The case closed on October 29, 2024, just 76 days after filing. The court’s order records that the parties agreed to dismiss the proceedings under Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 42(b), which governs voluntary dismissals at the appellate level. No substantive merits ruling was issued, meaning the Federal Circuit did not adjudicate the validity of US9943096B2 in this proceeding.
The speed of resolution — 76 days against a typical Federal Circuit timeline of 18 months or more — strongly suggests a negotiated resolution or strategic withdrawal rather than a procedural lapse. Whether the dismissal reflects a settlement, a licensing arrangement, or a unilateral decision by Impossible Foods to abandon the appeal cannot be determined from the public record alone. The absence of a merits ruling leaves the underlying patent’s validity status unchanged by this proceeding.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 76 days
76 days — well below the median Federal Circuit appeal duration of ~18 months
Appeal dismissed by agreement: what the order means for both parties
Fed. R. App. P. 42(b): voluntary dismissal at the appellate level
Rule 42(b) allows parties to dismiss an appeal by filing a signed agreement or on the appellant’s motion. Because the order states ‘the parties having so agreed,’ this was a joint dismissal — not a unilateral withdrawal. Critically, no merits decision was issued: the Federal Circuit made no finding on the validity of US9943096B2. The patent’s legal status is unaffected by this order.
No merits adjudicationThe public record is silent on prejudice terms
A Rule 42(b) dismissal can be with or without prejudice to refiling, depending on the agreement between the parties. The court order does not specify which applies here. A dismissal with prejudice would bar Impossible Foods from re-raising the same invalidity arguments in a future Federal Circuit appeal on this patent. Without prejudice, the door may remain open. The available docket does not resolve this question.
Prejudice terms undisclosedImpossible Foods exits without a ruling — strategic ambiguity remains
Impossible Foods filed the appeal as a patentability challenge, consistent with contesting an adverse PTAB ruling. By agreeing to dismiss, the company foregoes a Federal Circuit merits decision — whether that reflects a settlement, a commercial resolution, or a recalibrated litigation strategy is not determinable from the public record. The withdrawal in under 76 days suggests the parties reached an agreement relatively quickly after the appeal was docketed.
Withdrawal — no rulingUS9943096B2 survives this challenge — patent holder’s position strengthened
The patent covering flavor and aroma profile methods for consumables was not invalidated by this proceeding. For competitors in the plant-based food and alternative protein sector, the patent remains enforceable as issued. Any party that was watching this Federal Circuit appeal as a potential clearing event should reassess freedom-to-operate positions. Future challenges would need to initiate a new proceeding from scratch.
Patent survives appealFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC. | Company | Plant-based food technology company — appellant asserting invalidity of US9943096B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Defendant | Individual | Respondent not identified in available public docket records for this appealSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Lorelei Westin | Attorney | Counsel for IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Matthew R. Reed | Attorney | Counsel for IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Michael T. Rosato | Attorney | Counsel for IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Richard Torczon | Attorney | Counsel for IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Steffen Nathanael Johnson | Attorney | Counsel for IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Tasha Thomas | Attorney | Counsel for IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Wendy L. Devine | Attorney | Counsel for IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | WilsonSonsini Goodrich & Rosati LLP | Law Firm | Representing IMPOSSIBLE FOODS INC.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Court of Appeals for the Federal CircuitSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The order’s phrasing — ‘the parties having so agreed’ — confirms this was a bilateral dismissal under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), not a unilateral appellant withdrawal. No standard of review was applied and no claim construction or validity finding was made. The Federal Circuit expressed no view on the merits of the patentability challenge to US9943096B2. For the patent holder, the dismissal leaves the patent intact; for the challenger, it closes this appellate avenue without the precedential protection a favorable ruling would have provided.
US9943096B2 — Flavor and aroma profile methods for consumables
US9943096B2 (application number US15/398479) is directed to methods and compositions for affecting the flavor and aroma profile of consumables — a technically broad domain covering formulation science applied to food and beverage products. The patent’s claims are consistent with IP protecting proprietary ingredient systems or processing techniques that modulate sensory attributes in plant-based or alternative protein products. The patent was the subject of an invalidity or cancellation action before the USPTO, indicating at least one party believed the claims faced prior art or patentability vulnerabilities.
In the context of Impossible Foods’ technology portfolio — centred on plant-based meat analogues and novel food ingredient science — patents governing flavor and aroma modulation are strategically significant. The ability to replicate or exceed the sensory profile of conventional meat products is a core differentiator in the alternative protein market. A patent of this scope, if broadly construed, could affect ingredient suppliers, flavour house licensees, and competing plant-based food manufacturers. Its survival through the PTAB and this Federal Circuit appeal, without a merits ruling, suggests the claims remain in their issued form.
Should your R&D team run an FTO against US9943096B2?
Any company formulating plant-based meat, alternative protein products, or flavour and aroma systems for consumables should evaluate whether their methods or compositions overlap with the claim scope of US9943096B2. The patent survived a patentability challenge at the PTAB and a Federal Circuit appeal was voluntarily dismissed — meaning no invalidity finding exists in the public record. R&D teams working on ingredient selection, Maillard reaction control, heme-analogue flavour delivery, or fermentation-derived aroma compounds are most directly in scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your formulation methods against the claim language of US9943096B2, identify prior art that was or was not raised in the PTAB record, and flag design-around opportunities. Eureka’s claim-level analysis helps IP and R&D teams move faster than manual searches, with structured outputs ready for counsel review. For companies in the consumables flavour space, this is a timely moment to confirm your freedom-to-operate position.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9943096B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Federal Circuit appeals in plant-based food and consumables patentability
Cases involving patentability challenges to food technology and consumables flavor IP at the Federal Circuit, including PTAB appeal dismissals in the alternative protein sector.
What this case signals for the plant-based food IP landscape
A swift Federal Circuit dismissal without a merits ruling leaves commercial uncertainty in place for competitors in the consumables flavor-technology space.
Fast dismissals at the Federal Circuit typically signal a deal, not defeat
When a Federal Circuit appeal resolves in under 90 days by joint agreement, the commercial and IP intelligence value is in what wasn’t decided. The patent survived this challenge. Competitors and licensees should treat US9943096B2 as fully enforceable until further notice and consider whether any licensing discussions are now underway.
PTAB outcomes remain intact — the underlying record still matters
Because the appeal was dismissed without merits adjudication, the PTAB’s prior ruling — whatever it held — is the last substantive word on validity in this chain of proceedings. IP teams monitoring this patent should review the PTAB record for claim construction positions, prior art cited, and any surviving claims to understand the true scope of exposure.
IMPOSSIBLE v Defendant — key questions answered
The dismissal under Rule 42(b) means the Federal Circuit issued no merits ruling on the validity of US9943096B2. The patent remains in force as issued. The court order confirms the dismissal was by joint agreement, but does not specify whether it was with or without prejudice, leaving the terms of any underlying resolution undisclosed.
Neither party won or lost on the merits. Impossible Foods and the opposing party agreed to dismiss the appeal before the Federal Circuit issued any ruling. The voluntary dismissal means the underlying PTAB decision — whatever it held — stands as the last substantive ruling in this chain of proceedings, and no Federal Circuit precedent was created.
The patent at issue is US9943096B2, filed under application number US15/398479. It covers methods and compositions for affecting the flavor and aroma profile of consumables — a domain directly relevant to plant-based food formulation and alternative protein product development.
Potentially, subject to IPR estoppel rules under 35 U.S.C. § 315(e). If Impossible Foods previously filed an IPR petition that resulted in a final written decision, estoppel may bar re-raising grounds that were raised or reasonably could have been raised. The dismissal of the Federal Circuit appeal does not itself create estoppel, but the prior PTAB record would need to be reviewed.
76 days is far shorter than the typical Federal Circuit appeal timeline of 12–18 months. A joint dismissal at this early stage typically suggests the parties reached a negotiated resolution — potentially a settlement, licensing agreement, or commercial deal — shortly after the appeal was docketed. The public record does not disclose the terms of any such agreement.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.