DCT

2:19-cv-01267

Nutramax Laboratories Inc v. FLP LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:19-cv-01267, D. Ariz., 02/22/2019
  • Venue Allegations: Venue is based on Defendant FLP’s principal place of business being located in the District of Arizona, where it also allegedly manufactures the accused products.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s veterinary liver support supplement infringes patents related to therapeutic compositions containing S-adenosylmethionine (SAMe) combined with milk thistle derivatives.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves nutritional compositions for protecting and repairing liver tissue in animals, a significant segment of the veterinary health market.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff provided Defendant with actual notice of infringement via a letter dated one month prior to filing suit, which may form the basis for a willfulness claim.

Case Timeline

Date Event
1998-02-27 Priority Date for ’141, ’906, and ’779 Patents
2003-04-29 U.S. Patent No. 6,555,141 Issues
2005-03-08 U.S. Patent No. 6,863,906 Issues
2009-07-21 U.S. Patent No. 7,563,779 Issues
2019-01-22 Plaintiff sends Defendant letter alleging infringement
2019-02-22 Complaint Filed

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 6,555,141 - “L-Ergothioneine, Milk Thistle, and S-Adenosylmethionine for the Prevention, Treatment and Repair of Liver Damage,” issued April 29, 2003

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent’s background section describes the complexity of liver disease and notes that therapeutic approaches are limited, often treating only secondary symptoms or causing significant side effects, creating a need for a therapy that supports liver function and healing directly (’141 Patent, col. 2:1-20).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a therapeutic composition that combines two or more compounds from a specific group—S-adenosylmethionine (SAMe), L-ergothioneine, and milk thistle derivatives (like silymarin)—to protect, treat, and repair liver tissue (’141 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:34-40). The detailed description explains that these components work via different but complementary biochemical pathways to counteract liver damage, for example, by providing antioxidant effects and supporting cellular repair (’141 Patent, col. 6:31-40).
  • Technical Importance: The patent describes a multi-component approach to address the multifaceted nature of liver injury, combining ingredients that support cell membrane fluidity, provide antioxidant effects, and stimulate protein synthesis (’141 Patent, col. 3:9-33; col. 6:20-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 2 and 5.
  • Independent Claim 2 (Composition Claim):
    • A composition comprising:
    • a. S-adenosylmethionine and
    • b. one or more substances selected from the group consisting of a constituent of milk thistle (Silybum marianum), silymarin and active components of silymarin.
  • Independent Claim 5 (Method Claim):
    • A method for improving or maintaining the health of liver tissue of a human or other animal
    • comprising administering to the human or animal a therapeutically or prophylactically effective amount of the composition of claim 2.

U.S. Patent No. 6,863,906 - “L-Ergothioneine, Milk Thistle, and S-Adenosylmethionine for the Prevention, Treatment and Repair of Liver Damage,” issued March 8, 2005

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the ’141 Patent, this patent addresses the same problem: the lack of effective, non-symptomatic therapies for the complex causes of liver disease in humans and animals (’906 Patent, col. 2:1-29).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides novel compositions combining two or more compounds from SAMe, L-ergothioneine, and milk thistle to protect and repair liver tissue (’906 Patent, Abstract). The specification explains that the combination of ingredients is intended to work synergistically to address the multiple pathological mechanisms of liver damage, such as oxidative stress and impaired protein synthesis (’906 Patent, col. 5:24-42).
  • Technical Importance: The invention builds on the principle of combining agents that target distinct biochemical pathways involved in liver injury, aiming to provide a more comprehensive therapeutic effect than a single agent could achieve (’906 Patent, col. 5:24-42).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 14.
  • Independent Claim 1 (Composition Claim):
    • A composition comprising:
    • a first component comprising S-adenosylmethionine; and
    • a second component comprising at least one substance selected from the group consisting of L-ergothioneine and a milk thistle component.
  • Independent Claim 14 (Method Claim):
    • A method for improving or maintaining the health of liver tissue or of normalizing or improving the function of the liver
    • comprising: administering a therapeutically or prophylactically effective amount of the composition of claim 1.

Multi-Patent Capsule: U.S. Patent No. 7,563,779

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,563,779, “L-Ergothioneine, Milk Thistle, and S-Adenosylmethionine for the Prevention, Treatment and Repair of Liver Damage,” issued July 21, 2009.
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, from the same family as the ’141 and ’906 patents, claims therapeutic compositions for liver health. The invention focuses on combining S-adenosylmethionine with substances from the milk thistle family, such as silymarin and its active components, to protect liver cells from toxins and promote repair (’779 Patent, Abstract).
  • Asserted Claims: The complaint asserts independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶62).
  • Accused Features: The accused LSG product is alleged to infringe because it is a composition that contains both SAMe and milk thistle with silymarin, falling within the scope of the asserted claim (Compl. ¶¶ 61-63).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

  • Product Identification: The accused product is the "Liver Support Gel" ("LSG") manufactured by Defendant FLP (Compl. ¶18).
  • Functionality and Market Context: The LSG is a nutritional supplement gel for pets, marketed through distributors such as RedDog (Compl. ¶¶ 18, 20). The complaint alleges the product is advertised to "protect[] the liver against toxins," "activate[] protein synthesis," and "stimulate[] growth of new liver cells" (Compl. ¶19). Crucially, the complaint alleges that the product's packaging and advertising represent that it contains both SAMe (as S-adenosine methionine) and milk thistle (including silymarin), placing it in direct competition with Plaintiff's products (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 20).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

’141 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 2) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A composition comprising: a. S-adenosylmethionine The LSG product is alleged to be a composition that contains SAMe, identified on its packaging as "S-adenosine methionine." ¶37 col. 3:5-20
and b. one or more substances selected from the group consisting of a constituent of milk thistle (Silybum marianum), silymarin and active components of silymarin. The LSG product is alleged to contain "milk thistle (including silymarin)." A screenshot of the accused LSG product's packaging label highlights the ingredients "S-adenosine methionine" and "Silymarin" (Compl. p. 6). ¶37 col. 5:52-62

’906 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A composition comprising: a first component comprising S-adenosylmethionine; The LSG product is alleged to be a composition containing SAMe, referred to as "S-adenosylmethionine" in the complaint's allegations. ¶50 col. 3:11-23
and a second component comprising at least one substance selected from the group consisting of L-ergothioneine and a milk thistle component. The LSG product is alleged to contain a "milk thistle component," which is one of the members of the claim's Markush group. ¶50 col. 5:57-63
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The complaint alleges the accused product contains a "synergistic combination" of the claimed ingredients (Compl. ¶¶ 25, 37). The patents repeatedly discuss the beneficial and synergistic effects of the claimed combinations (’141 Patent, col. 6:31-40). This raises the question of whether the claims require a "synergistically effective amount" to be infringed, which would impose a higher burden of proof on the Plaintiff than simply showing the presence of the ingredients.
    • Technical Questions: A primary technical question is whether the "S-adenosine methionine" and "milk thistle extract" identified on the accused product's label (Compl. p. 6) correspond precisely to the chemical components as defined and required by the patent claims. The infringement case rests on the assertion, made on "information and belief," that the actual formulation of the LSG product falls within the patents' technical scope.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "composition comprising"

  • Context and Importance: Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will determine whether infringement requires only the presence of the listed ingredients or also a functional outcome. Defendant may argue that "composition" is not merely a list of ingredients but is implicitly limited by the specification's extensive discussion of therapeutic and synergistic effects, thereby requiring Plaintiff to prove that the accused product achieves such effects.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The plain language of the claims recites a composition "comprising" certain ingredients, which is typically interpreted as open-ended, meaning the presence of the ingredients is sufficient for infringement, regardless of others (’141 Patent, col. 8:54-55).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification repeatedly characterizes the invention as providing novel compositions that "work synergistically" to achieve a therapeutic result (’141 Patent, col. 6:31-34). A court could be asked to import this functional limitation into the definition of the claimed "composition."

  • The Term: "a substance selected from the group consisting of a constituent of Milk thistle (Silybum marianum), silymarin and active components of silymarin" (’141 Patent, Claim 2)

  • Context and Importance: This Markush group is central to infringement. The dispute may turn on whether the accused product's "milk thistle extract" and "silymarin" (Compl. p. 6) meet the definition of any member of this group. The defendant could argue its specific extract is chemically distinct from the "constituent" or "active components" taught in the patent.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification broadly discusses milk thistle and its extracts, suggesting the terms are intended to be inclusive of commercially available forms containing silymarin (’141 Patent, col. 5:52-62).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides specific examples of "active components of silymarin," such as silybin and isosilybin (’141 Patent, col. 6:1-18; Fig. 7). A defendant may argue that the term should be narrowly construed to cover only these specified components, which it may contend are absent from its product.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges induced infringement of the method claims in the ’141 and ’906 patents. The allegations are based on Defendant's sale of the LSG product coupled with advertising and instructions on its distributor’s website, which allegedly encourage and direct customers to administer the product in a manner that performs the patented methods (Compl. ¶¶ 44-46, 57-59).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Defendant’s continued infringing conduct after receiving a letter dated January 22, 2019, which provided actual notice of the asserted patents (Compl. ¶33). This pre-suit knowledge is asserted as the basis for enhanced damages (Compl. ¶¶ 40, 53, 66).

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of compositional proof: does the accused Liver Support Gel, as actually formulated and sold, contain the specific chemical constituents (S-adenosylmethionine and a qualifying milk thistle derivative) in a manner that meets the limitations of the asserted claims? The outcome may depend on whether discovery confirms the "information and belief" allegations regarding the product's precise chemical makeup.
  • A central legal issue will be one of definitional scope: will the term "composition" be construed to simply require the presence of the claimed ingredients, or will it be functionally limited by the specification's emphasis on achieving a "synergistic" or "therapeutic" effect? The answer to this claim construction question will define the scope of what Plaintiff must prove to establish infringement.