84 NEWS REVIEW – FEED
FEED Asian expansion and sustainability initatiatives were key themes for feed producers this year
I
N January, we reported that a court ruling in Oslo led to a war of words between feed giant BioMar and nutrient specialist STIM over a smolt feed patent. The argument concerned BioMar’s smoltification feed Intro Tuning, which STIM maintained infringed the patent of its own SuperSmolt FeedOnly. Both are specialist products to control smoltification, reducing the number of immature fish transferred to sites in the sea too early and also preventing smolts from maturing too early. STIM AS submitted a request to the Norwegian courts in July 2020 stating that BioMar should be prohibited from the sale of Intro Tuning. According to STIM, the feed violated a new European patent that STIM had recently been granted. The Oslo County Court held hearings in the case in the first week in November 2020. A decision was handed down by the court on 8 December concluding that BioMar’s feed Intro Tuning should not be the subject of an injunction. BioMar hailed the decision as vindication of its position. Håvard Jørgensen, Managing Director of BioMar Norway, said: “We are very
Feed News Review v2.indd 84
This page from the top: Håvard Jørgensen; Jim-Roger Nordly Opposite from the top: Antarctic penguins; Deforestation
happy with the outcome of this case. The decision from the court is in accordance with the European Patent Office’s (EPO) understanding of STIM’s patent, and thus as expected. This decision means that fish farmers can continue to choose feed from our product portfolio that promotes growth and health during smoltification and transfer to seawater.” STIM, however, expressed a very different interpretation of the ruling. Its CEO, Jim-Roger Nordly, said: “Jørgensen has no basis for making such a claim. In reality, BioMar succeeded with nothing more than legal filibuster and a reasoning that flies directly in the face of the work that EPO does to protect important innovations against unlawful exploitation.” STIM maintains that BioMar’s substitution of alternative amino acids for SuperSmolt’s key ingredient, L-Tryptophane, does not absolve the larger company from the charge of patent infringement. The dispute has rolled on through the year, with BioMar appealing against a court decision in March that landed the feed group with a fine of NOK 23m (£1.92m). STIM hailed a further victory in July, with the European Patent Office agreeing to widen the scope of STIM’s patent protection.
29/11/2021 14:12:12
