DCT

2:24-cv-05442

Bloom Nu LLC v. ThermoLife Intl LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:24-cv-05442, C.D. Cal., 06/27/2024
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff Bloom Nu LLC asserts venue is proper in the Central District of California based on Defendant ThermoLife International's alleged principal place of business within the district, as well as ThermoLife's purposeful direction of patent enforcement activities into the district by filing an infringement complaint against a California-based entity through Amazon's APEX Process.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its nutritional supplement products do not infringe Defendant’s patent related to amino acid and nitrate compositions, following an infringement claim initiated by the Defendant via a third-party enforcement platform.
  • Technical Context: The patent-in-suit relates to nutritional supplement formulations, particularly for the sports nutrition market, that combine specific amino acids with nitrate salts to purportedly enhance bioavailability and vasodilation.
  • Key Procedural History: The patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 8,455,531, has undergone two separate ex parte reexaminations which resulted in significant amendments and narrowing of the patent’s claims, including the specific claim asserted against the Plaintiff. The current lawsuit was precipitated by the Defendant’s use of the Amazon Patent Evaluation Express (APEX) Process to allege infringement, creating the basis for this declaratory judgment action.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2007-09-18 '531' Patent Priority Date
2013-06-04 '531 Patent Issue Date
2017-01-23 '531 Patent First Reexamination Certificate (C1) Issued
2019-01-01 Plaintiff Bloom Nu LLC Founded (Compl. ¶14)
2020-09-11 '531 Patent Second Reexamination Certificate (C2) Issued
2024-04-01 ThermoLife files APEX claim against Bloom (Compl. ¶18)
2024-06-27 Complaint for Declaratory Judgment Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,455,531 - "Amino Acid Compositions"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,455,531, "Amino Acid Compositions", issued June 4, 2013 (the '531 Patent).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background describes several limitations of conventional amino acid supplements. These include poor water solubility for certain amino acids like creatine and glutamine, which can reduce bioavailability and limit effective forms of administration (’531 Patent, col. 4:2-5, col. 4:23-26). The specification also notes that some amino acids, such as Arginine, require large doses and extensive metabolism to produce a vasodilating effect (’531 Patent, col. 4:26-33). Furthermore, the patent acknowledges that conventional nitrate therapies can lead to "tolerance," where the subject's response decreases over time (’531 Patent, col. 17:39-47).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention proposes compositions that combine an amino acid with a nitrate or nitrite source as separate components (’531 Patent, Abstract). This combination is described as increasing the water solubility and bioabsorption of the amino acids and providing an additional, more direct pathway for nitric oxide (NO) production via the nitrate-nitrite-NO pathway (’531 Patent, col. 17:47-58). This dual-pathway approach for vasodilation is presented as a way to achieve a faster and more potent effect than administering either component alone.
  • Technical Importance: The described technology sought to create more effective nutritional supplements by synergistically combining amino acids with nitrates, aiming to overcome the pharmacokinetic and practical limitations of prior art supplements. (’531 Patent, col. 17:47-58).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint states that Defendant ThermoLife alleged infringement of claim 62 via the Amazon APEX Process (Compl. ¶18). The analysis focuses on this claim as amended by the second ex parte reexamination certificate.
  • Independent Claim 62 (as amended by C2 Certificate):
    • A solid supplement formulation comprising:
    • at least one non-ester nitrate compound; and
    • at least one isolated amino acid compound selected from the group consisting of Agmatine, Beta Alanine, Citrulline, L-Histidine, Aspartic Acid, Cysteine, Glycine, Lysine, Methionine, Proline, Tyrosine, and Phenylalanine,
    • wherein the at least one isolated amino acid compound is a separate compound than the at least one non-ester nitrate compound.
  • The Plaintiff seeks a declaration of non-infringement of any claim of the '531 Patent (Compl. ¶26).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Plaintiff’s Superfood Greens (a.k.a. Greens & Superfoods), Original Pre-Workout, and High Energy Pre-Workout products (Compl. ¶18).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint identifies the accused instrumentalities as "high-quality, delicious health supplements" (Compl. ¶15). It does not, however, provide any specific details regarding the ingredients, formulations, or technical operation of these products.

The complaint alleges that the products are sold through major retail channels, including over 600 Target stores, and on online platforms such as Amazon.com (Compl. ¶16). It further alleges that a potential delisting from Amazon would result in the loss of "millions of dollars in sales each month," suggesting the products have a significant market presence (Compl. ¶33).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint is a declaratory judgment action for non-infringement and therefore does not contain infringement allegations or a claim chart. Instead, it asserts that Plaintiff's products "do not infringe the '531 patent directly or indirectly, contributorily or by inducement, literally or under the doctrine of equivalents, or in any manner whatsoever" (Compl. ¶23). No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

The central dispute, initiated by the Defendant's claim through the APEX process, is whether the accused products meet all limitations of the asserted claim 62. The complaint does not provide sufficient detail, such as product ingredient lists, for a technical analysis of this dispute.

  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Factual Question: The primary issue for the court will be factual: do the formulations of the accused products contain both "at least one non-ester nitrate compound" and "at least one isolated amino acid compound" selected from the specific, narrowed list in amended Claim 62? The resolution will depend on discovery of the products' precise compositions.
    • Technical Question: A key technical question is whether the components in Plaintiff's products, if present, exist as "separate compound[s]" as required by the claim. This limitation was added during reexamination and suggests a physical mixture of distinct ingredients, not a single chemical entity where a nitrate is bonded to an amino acid.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "isolated amino acid compound"

  • Context and Importance: The construction of this term, introduced during reexamination, is critical. The infringement analysis depends on whether the amino acids in Plaintiff's products (e.g., in a "Superfood Greens" blend) qualify as "isolated." Practitioners may focus on this term because if it is construed to mean a purified, synthetically derived, or separately added ingredient, Plaintiff could argue that any amino acids present naturally within a complex botanical blend do not meet this limitation.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a broad definition of "Amino Acid," stating it "may refer to an Amino Acid in its many different chemical forms" including "products of biosynthesis" (’531 Patent, col. 3:45-53).
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim language requires the amino acid to be "isolated" and also specifies that it is a "separate compound" from the nitrate compound (’531 Patent C2, col. 4:25-34). This language was added during reexamination, which may suggest a deliberate effort to distinguish the claimed invention from compositions where amino acids are merely co-located with nitrates in a raw natural product or are chemically bonded together.

  • The Term: "non-ester nitrate compound"

  • Context and Importance: This term defines the type of nitrate source covered by the claim. Its construction will determine whether nitrate-containing ingredients in Plaintiff's products fall within the claim's scope.

  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses that "natural sources of Nitrates that are commonly used in supplement industry are appropriate sources," listing examples like extracts of "Cabbage, Spinach, Beetroot" (’531 Patent, col. 7:51-56). A party could argue this supports a construction covering nitrates as they exist in such natural extracts.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The term "non-ester" was added during reexamination, likely to disclaim nitrate esters (e.g., nitroglycerin). The specification also provides explicit examples of simple salts such as "sodium nitrate, potassium nitrate" (’531 Patent, col. 7:15-17), which could support an argument that the term is primarily directed at discrete nitrate salts rather than complex botanical mixtures.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint includes a general denial of any indirect, contributory, or induced infringement (Compl. ¶23). No specific facts are alleged by either party in the provided document that would support such a claim.
  • Willful Infringement: Willfulness is not alleged, as this is a declaratory judgment action filed by the accused infringer. The complaint does allege that the Defendant "knew or should have known" its infringement allegations were baseless, but this is pled in support of its state-law tortious interference claims, not a patent-law willfulness claim (Compl. ¶32, 40).

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

  • A key evidentiary question will be one of composition: does discovery reveal that Plaintiff's accused supplement formulations in fact contain both a "non-ester nitrate compound" and one of the specific amino acids listed in the reexamined Claim 62, and if so, do they exist as separate compounds?
  • A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the term "isolated amino acid compound," added during reexamination, be construed to cover amino acids that may be naturally occurring within a complex ingredient blend (such as a "Superfoods" powder), or is its meaning limited to purified, separately added amino acid ingredients? The court's construction of this term could be dispositive for the non-infringement analysis.