Notices from Pendulum and iHerb describe restrictions on certain supplements in eight European markets, while a database of Unified Patent Court (UPC) decisions lists a provisional order in a case that may limit their distribution.
Pendulum and iHerb say the measure covers products containing Eubacterium hallii, now known as Anaerobutyricum hallii, and/or Alcaligenes faecalis when used to prevent or treat insulin resistance and related complications. The notices name Glucose Control and Metabolic Daily; the eight markets are Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and Switzerland. Their notices say the covered activity includes making or offering the products, putting them on the market, using them, importing them or storing them.
United Patents’ database identifies Caelus Lifesciences IP B.V. as claimant in case UPC-CFI-0001615/2026 and lists Pendulum Therapeutics Inc., Hebron Nutrition Inc., iHerb Netherlands B.V., Spectrum Supplements Inc. and DetoxPeople Ltd. as defendants. The entry names European patent EP 2 753 187 B2. Pendulum and iHerb give an Oct. 8 date for the order, while the database entry is dated Oct. 28.
Caelus Life Sciences said the court’s preliminary view concerned the patent’s validity and whether it was infringed. The company said it intends to pursue further proceedings to resolve the case and characterized the current restrictions as provisional. Caelus describes its business model as supplying the ingredient to licensed partners and says it remains open to licensing arrangements with other companies.
The European Patent Office’s Board of Appeal ruled Feb. 10, 2025, that the patent should remain in force in an amended form, with claims numbered 1 through 14. That ruling dealt with the patent’s status and did not decide whether the defendants infringed it before the UPC.
NutraIngredients reported Oct. 28 that Pendulum had appealed the order, citing comments from co-founder and CEO Colleen Cutcliffe. The outlet said Pendulum was complying while the appeal proceeded but did not cite an appeal filing.
