The Swiss-Dutch group claims that certain Haineng swine compound premix containing 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 constitutes unlawful use of the dsm-firmenich patented technology.
The petition that the company filed asks the court to order Haineng to "cease using its technology and to pay the company compensation for the infringement."
dsm-firmenich maintains that it is the lead innovator in the 25-hydroxyvitamin D3 space and that it holds and has been expanding a comprehensive patent portfolio throughout the value chain.
"From the manufacturing of crystalline 25-hydroxyvitamin D3, its formulations and its applications, the dsm-firmenich patent portfolio protects the exhaustive scientific research and development that has gone into both our innovative technologies and business,” said Christie Chavis, vice president, animal nutrition and health performance solutions, dsm-firmenich.
“We actively enforce patents against infringement to support and continue to invest in much-needed scientific innovation to bring advancements in sustainability, health and nutrition to the animal industry,” she added.
When asked to identify the court where the proceedings would take place or the potential compensation amount in such a case, a spokesperson said dsm-firmenich would not comment further on the pending legal action.
"It is our company's policy to refrain from providing specific details or statements related to ongoing legal proceedings. This approach is in line with our commitment to maintaining the integrity of the legal process and respecting the confidentiality requirements surrounding such matters."
Case over biotin intermediate
The move follows the petition dsm-firmenich filed earlier this month in the court in Anhui Province in China, against local company, Shengda, alleging that the Chinese firm was in violation of patent rules in relation to the production of a key biotin intermediate at its Anhui site.
In early 2021, DSM, as it was called then, was successful in enforcing the same patent in China against another local biotin manufacturer, with both an injunction and compensation achieved.
China’s Supreme People’s Court sided with the human and animal nutritional ingredients producer in a case against the Chinese vitamin maker, Anhui Tiger Vitamin. That case centered on the stereoselective synthesis of biotin. The court ordered Tiger, a subsidiary of the Chinese drug and food ingredient firm, BBCA Group, to no longer make a biotin intermediate using a DSM patented process, nor make biotin using that prepared intermediate.
