DCT
2:13-cv-06120
ThermoLife Intl LLC v. HBS Intl Corp
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Thermolife International, LLC (Arizona)
- Defendant: HBS International Corp. (Ontario, Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Newport Trial Group
- Case Identification: ThermoLife Intl LLC v. HBS Intl Corp, 2:13-cv-06120, C.D. Cal., 08/20/2013
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendant, through intermediaries, ships, distributes, offers for sale, and sells the accused products in the Central District of California, thereby placing them into the stream of commerce with the expectation of purchase by consumers in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s D-Aspartic Acid dietary supplements, and their marketing and sale, infringe a patent directed to a method of using a D-aspartic acid compound to increase testosterone levels in adult males.
- Technical Context: The lawsuit concerns the field of nutritional supplements, specifically compounds that purport to modulate human hormone levels for improved physical performance and other health benefits.
- Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that Plaintiff issued a widely known press release upon the patent’s issuance, sent detailed communications to Defendant notifying it of the patent and its infringement, and engaged in unfruitful licensing discussions prior to filing suit. These allegations may be used to support claims of willful infringement.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2008-03-28 | '908 Patent Priority Date |
| 2012-06-19 | '908 Patent Issue Date |
| 2013-08-20 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,202,908 - "D-ASPARTIC ACID SUPPLEMENT"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,202,908, "D-ASPARTIC ACID SUPPLEMENT", issued June 19, 2012.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes that levels of key male hormones like testosterone, growth hormone (GH), and insulin-like growth factor 1 (IGF-1) decline with age, and that while animal studies have explored D-aspartic acid, its effects on hormone levels in male humans were previously unexamined ('908 Patent, col. 2:25-29; col. 3:49-53).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for increasing these hormone levels in adult male humans by orally administering an effective amount of a D-aspartic acid compound. The patent posits this as a way to improve physical condition without directly administering hormones ('908 Patent, Abstract; col. 3:4-14).
- Technical Importance: The claimed method provides a non-hormonal pathway to potentially stimulate the body's endogenous production of testosterone and other hormones, which could avoid disadvantages associated with direct hormone supplementation ('908 Patent, col.3:1-4).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claim 2 ('908 Patent, col. 4:18-29; Compl. ¶38).
- Independent Claim 1 requires:
- A method of increasing the levels of testosterone, growth hormone, and/or insulin-like growth factor 1 in an adult male human;
- The method comprises administering by oral ingestion a D-aspartic acid compound (selected from D-aspartic acid, its salts, or its esters) to an adult male human;
- The compound is administered in an amount and for a time sufficient to cause the increase in hormone levels.
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶38).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The accused products are "D-Aspartic Acid"-branded dietary supplements manufactured, marketed, and sold by Defendant, including a product identified as "ALLMAX D-Aspartic Acid" (Compl. ¶¶6, 15.e).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused products are supplements containing a D-aspartic acid compound intended for oral ingestion by adult male humans (Compl. ¶¶7, 10, 11).
- Marketing materials for the products allegedly state that they "Boosts Natural Testosterone" and reference clinical research finding that "oral dosages of 3.12 g of D-Aspartic Acid revealed dramatic increases in Testosterone of 42% on average in just 12 days" (Compl. ¶15.c-d). The product is allegedly marketed to "Athletes and bodybuilders" and contains 3.12 grams of D-Aspartic Acid per serving (Compl. ¶15.f-g).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
'908 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of increasing the levels of testosterone, growth hormone, and/or insulin-like growth factor 1 in an adult male human... | Defendant's product is allegedly marketed to and intended for use by adult male humans for the purpose of increasing testosterone levels, with labels claiming it "Boosts Natural Testosterone." | ¶11, ¶15 | col. 4:18-20 |
| ...the method comprising administering by oral ingestion a D-aspartic acid compound selected from the group consisting of D-aspartic acid, D-Aspartate salts, and D-aspartate esters to an adult male human... | The accused products are alleged to contain a D-aspartic acid compound and are administered by oral ingestion, per the product's instructions to mix a serving in water or juice. | ¶9, ¶10, ¶15 | col. 4:20-23 |
| ...wherein said D-aspartic acid compound is administered in an amount and for a time sufficient to increase the levels of testosterone, growth hormone, and/or insulin-like growth factor 1. | The product provides 3.12 grams per serving, and its advertisements cite a study claiming this dosage leads to a 42% increase in testosterone over 12 days, which the complaint alleges constitutes a sufficient amount and time. | ¶12, ¶15 | col. 4:23-26 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The asserted claims are for a method, which is practiced by the end-user, not directly by the Defendant selling the product. The case will therefore depend heavily on the theory of indirect infringement. A central question is whether Defendant's marketing and instructions for use constitute active inducement for customers to perform every step of the claimed method.
- Technical Questions: The complaint relies on Defendant's own marketing claims to establish that the product's dosage is "sufficient to increase the levels of testosterone" (Compl. ¶15.d). A potential point of dispute is whether this marketing claim is sufficient evidence to meet the legal standard for infringement of this functional limitation, or if independent scientific proof of efficacy is required.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "an amount and for a time sufficient to increase the levels of testosterone..."
- Context and Importance: This is a functional limitation that defines a key parameter of the invention by its result. The entire infringement analysis for this element hinges on whether the accused method of use (e.g., taking 3.12g daily) actually achieves the claimed outcome. Practitioners may focus on this term because its construction will set the evidentiary bar for proving infringement.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses a wide dosage range of "about 1 to 100 grams per day," with a preferred range of "about 1 to 20 grams per day" ('908 Patent, col. 3:62-64). This could support an argument that any statistically significant increase resulting from a dose within this broad range meets the limitation.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term requires a specific, material, or clinically meaningful increase, not just any detectable change. The patent's example describes administering doses of 5, 10, and 20 grams of D-aspartic acid equivalent, which a party might argue sets a higher baseline for what constitutes a "sufficient" amount ('908 Patent, col. 4:4-14).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint heavily relies on allegations of induced infringement. It asserts that Defendant's product labels and advertisements "explain the elements," "encourage, urge, and induce" end-users to orally ingest the product, and thereby practice the patented method (Compl. ¶22). The complaint further alleges that the accused products are not suitable for substantial non-infringing uses (Compl. ¶24), which supports a claim for contributory infringement.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the '908 patent. The basis for this allegation includes a public press release issued by Plaintiff, "detailed communications" sent from Plaintiff to Defendant about the patent, and "potential licensing discussions" between the parties that "were not fruitful" (Compl. ¶¶28, 29, 30).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of indirect liability: As the asserted claims are for a method practiced by consumers, the case will likely turn on whether Plaintiff can prove that Defendant, by marketing and providing instructions for its product, specifically intended to cause its customers to perform every step of the patented method, making it liable for induced infringement.
- A key evidentiary question will be one of functional efficacy: Does the accused product, when used as directed at a dosage of 3.12 grams per day, actually satisfy the claim requirement of being "an amount and for a time sufficient to increase the levels of testosterone"? The resolution may depend on competing scientific evidence and expert testimony regarding the product's physiological effects.
- The allegations of willfulness appear factually specific, raising the question of whether Defendant's continued sales after alleged direct notification and failed licensing talks constitute the kind of "egregious behavior" that could lead to enhanced damages if infringement is found.