Esterified propoxylated glycerol (EPG) is a low-calorie fat substitute that has been in patent literature for decades. In 2026, however, the ingredient has become the focus of a very different intellectual property story involving newer patents, manufacturing control, commercial supply and an ongoing antitrust dispute.
EPG provides the functionality of conventional fat with substantially fewer calories. Conventional fat provides about 9 calories per gram, while EPG provides approximately 0.7 calories per gram, representing about 92% fewer calories from fat. This property has made EPG particularly attractive for protein bars and other products where manufacturers want fat-like texture and mouthfeel without the same caloric contribution.
The technology has also developed beyond its original invention. While some foundational EPG patents have expired, later patents cover specific manufacturing, purification and formulation technologies. The producer of EPG, Epogee, was acquired by protein-bar company David for $75 million in 2025, bringing the ingredient producer and a major EPG customer under the same ownership.
That acquisition has made EPG a current case study in how patent rights, manufacturing know-how and control of a critical ingredient can intersect.
EPG is decades old, but the commercial IP is newer
The basic EPG technology dates to the 1980s.
An early U.S. patent, US 5,603,978, claims priority to July 25, 1986 and describes esterified propylene oxide-extended glycerols as non-digestible, low-calorie fat substitutes. The U.S. patent is now listed as expired.
The expiration of an early patent does not mean that every subsequent EPG technology is unprotected.
Later patents were developed around the practical challenges of making and using EPG at commercial scale. This includes technologies for producing high-purity EPG, removing unwanted fatty acids and improving the physical characteristics of EPG-containing formulations.
That distinction is central to understanding the current patent position.
Later patents protect manufacturing and purification
One important later patent is US 8,354,551, Process for Producing Esterified Propoxylated Glycerin.
The patent has a February 28, 2012 priority date and is currently listed in the U.S. patent record as active-reinstated, with an anticipated expiration date of February 28, 2032. Epogee LLC is listed as the assignee.
The patent covers a manufacturing process involving steps used to produce a commercially useful EPG product with controlled purity and quality characteristics.
Another patent, US 9,533,936, covers the removal of fatty acid from esterified propoxylated glycerin. It has a June 15, 2016 priority date and is currently listed as active, with an anticipated expiration date of June 15, 2036.
These patents are commercially important because manufacturing and purification can determine whether a chemical technology can be produced consistently at scale.
The relevant IP question is therefore not simply whether the original EPG invention is old. It is whether a particular manufacturing method falls within the claims of a later enforceable patent.
Formulation patents add another layer
EPG’s intellectual property also extends to formulations.
US 8,715,764, Eutectic Mixtures of Esterified Propoxylated Glycerols with Digestible Fats, has a June 21, 2012 priority date and is currently listed as active, with an anticipated expiration date of June 21, 2032.
The patent addresses mixtures of EPG with digestible fats and focuses on physical properties important to food applications, including melting behaviour and texture.
This creates a layered IP structure:
1980s: foundational EPG fat-substitute technology.
2010s onward: patents covering specific production, purification and formulation technologies.
The commercial result is that the foundational technology can be old while later improvements remain protected.
The $75 million acquisition changed the commercial picture
The EPG story became significantly more important in 2025 when David acquired Epogee for $75 million.
David had already built its protein-bar business around a high-protein, lower-calorie proposition. Its flagship bar contains 28 grams of protein, zero sugar and 150 calories, with EPG used to reduce the calories contributed by fat.
The company also reported rapid retail expansion, reaching more than 3,000 U.S. retail locations during its early commercial period.
David CEO Peter Rahal said David consumed approximately 90% of Epogee’s supply.
That figure explains why the acquisition was more than a conventional food-company acquisition. David was acquiring the company that produced an ingredient on which its own products heavily depended.
The transaction effectively combined ingredient production, intellectual property and downstream product demand.
Supply control became the central dispute
Epogee had been the sole producer and supplier of EPG, according to the federal court record.
After the acquisition, companies that had previously purchased EPG from Epogee alleged that they could no longer obtain the ingredient.
The affected companies, OWN Your Hunger, Lighten Up Foods and Defiant Foods, brought an antitrust case against David, Epogee and Peter Rahal.
Their argument was not simply that David owned EPG-related patents. They argued that David’s acquisition of the sole EPG supplier gave it control over an essential input used by competing food companies.
This distinction matters.
A patent can provide exclusive rights over a claimed invention. Ownership of a manufacturer can provide control over production capacity and supply. When both exist around the same technology, the commercial implications can be much broader than the patent itself.
What happened in 2026?
The most important legal development in 2026 was the federal court’s treatment of the antitrust claims.
The court dismissed the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint and denied their request for a preliminary injunction. The court did not find that David had illegally monopolized EPG.
The central problem identified by the court was the plaintiffs’ definition of the relevant market and their allegations concerning competitive harm.
The plaintiffs had proposed several potential downstream markets involving products that use EPG. The court found that the allegations did not adequately establish the boundaries of those markets or demonstrate the required competitive harm.
The plaintiffs were subsequently permitted to amend their complaint and continue pursuing the case.
The current legal position therefore should be stated carefully: there has been no judicial finding that David unlawfully monopolized EPG. The antitrust dispute remains relevant because the plaintiffs continue to challenge the effects of David’s control over the EPG supply.
EPG already has established food uses
EPG is not an experimental ingredient without regulatory history.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration’s Generally Recognized as Safe database contains multiple EPG notices with “FDA has no questions” responses.
GRN 583 covers EPG as a fat replacer in specified confectionery applications and other foods.
GRN 640 covers additional uses including baked goods, frozen dairy desserts, grain products and pasta, gravies and sauces, nuts and nut products, and soft candy.
The notice specifies a maximum use level of 21% EPG in finished foods for the covered applications.
GRN 761 covers EPG for use as a frying oil in commercial French fries and doughnuts.
The regulatory record therefore shows that EPG’s potential applications extend beyond the protein-bar market.
EPG should nevertheless be described accurately as a food ingredient with FDA-reviewed food uses, rather than as an FDA-approved pharmaceutical ingredient.
Human data support its food-use history
EPG has also been evaluated in human studies.
A randomized controlled study published in 2014 involved 139 healthy adults. Participants consumed diets containing 10, 25 or 40 grams of EPG per day for eight weeks.
The study examined gastrointestinal tolerance and the effect of EPG consumption on the absorption of fat-soluble vitamins.
These data form part of the broader evidence base associated with EPG’s food-use safety assessment.
The evidence is relevant to food and nutrition applications. It does not establish EPG as a drug or pharmaceutical excipient approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.
Why EPG matters to pharma and life-sciences IP teams
EPG’s significance for pharmaceutical and life-sciences companies is primarily an IP and technology-strategy lesson.
The underlying technology is decades old, but subsequent innovation created additional patent opportunities around manufacturing, purification, formulation and specific applications.
This is a familiar pattern in pharmaceutical innovation. A foundational compound or platform may become old, while later patents can protect improved manufacturing processes, formulations, delivery systems or specific uses.
EPG also demonstrates another important commercial principle: patent protection is only one component of technological exclusivity.
Manufacturing capacity, process know-how, regulatory history and access to supply can create additional barriers for competitors.
The David-Epogee transaction illustrates this clearly. David acquired the producer for $75 million, while the company had already become heavily dependent on EPG for its own products.
The bigger IP lesson
EPG’s story is not simply about an expired patent.
The foundational technology dates to the 1980s and is no longer protected by the original U.S. patent. But later patents covering specific manufacturing, purification and formulation technologies remain listed as active, with some extending into the 2030s.
At the same time, EPG has an established U.S. food-use record, a commercial customer base and a producer that is now owned by one of its largest users.
That combination has created a modern IP and supply-chain battleground around a technology that is itself decades old.
For companies evaluating EPG, the critical question is therefore not whether “EPG is patented.” The relevant questions are narrower and more practical: which claims remain enforceable, what manufacturing processes do they cover, which formulations are protected, and who controls commercial production and supply?
EPG provides a clear example of how an old chemical invention can acquire new commercial significance through successive patent layers, manufacturing technology and supply-chain control.
Sources
- https://patents.google.com/patent/US5603978A/en
- https://patents.google.com/patent/US8354551B1/en
- https://patents.google.com/patent/US9533936B1/en
- https://patents.google.com/patent/US8715764B2/en
- https://patents.google.com/patent/US9011961B2/en
- https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2025cv04544/643480/77/
- https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1%3A2025cv04544/643480/80/
- https://hfpappexternal.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/index.cfm?id=583&set=GRASNotices
- https://hfpappexternal.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/index.cfm?id=640&set=GRASNotices
- https://hfpappexternal.fda.gov/scripts/fdcc/index.cfm?id=761&set=GRASNotices
- https://www.fda.gov/food/gras-notice-inventory/agency-response-letter-gras-notice-no-grn-000583
- https://www.fda.gov/food/gras-notice-inventory/agency-response-letter-gras-notice-no-grn-000640
- https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/25497998/
- https://www.mofo.com/resources/news/250529-mofo-advises-david-on
- https://www.foodbusinessnews.net/articles/28379-david-raises-75-million-in-series-a-round
- https://hgventures.com/epogee-acquired-by-david/
- https://epogee.com/
