2:25-cv-05871
Neurocentria Inc v. MANDO Intl LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Neurocentria, Inc. and Threotech LLC
- Defendant: Mando International, LLC d/b/a Kappy Nutrition
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fortis LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-05871, C.D. Cal., 06/27/2025
- Venue Allegations: The provided summons does not contain the complaint and therefore does not detail the specific allegations supporting venue in this district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges infringement of patents related to magnesium compositions for neurological, metabolic, or cognitive functions by Defendant’s nutritional products.
- Technical Context: The technology concerns magnesium-based compositions, particularly those involving magnesium L-threonate, for use as nutritional supplements to address neurological disorders and enhance cognitive function.
- Key Procedural History: The provided summons does not contain the complaint and therefore does not reference any prior litigation, IPR proceedings, or licensing history between the parties.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-03-22 | Earliest Priority Date for '803, '301, '118, '132, '061 Patents |
| 2012-03-27 | U.S. Patent No. 8,142,803 Issues |
| 2012-04-24 | U.S. Patent No. 8,163,301 Issues |
| 2012-05-15 | U.S. Patent No. 8,178,118 Issues |
| 2012-05-15 | U.S. Patent No. 8,178,132 Issues |
| 2014-01-28 | U.S. Patent No. 8,637,061 Issues |
| 2025-06-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
The provided summons does not attach the complaint. Therefore, the specific patent(s)-in-suit and the particular claims asserted against the Defendant are not identified in the documents provided for analysis. Without this information, an analysis of the patented technology and asserted claims cannot be performed.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
The provided summons does not attach the complaint and therefore does not identify the accused product(s), method(s), or service(s). Analysis of the accused instrumentality's functionality and market context cannot be performed.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint, which would contain the specific infringement allegations and any accompanying claim charts, was not provided for analysis. Therefore, a summary of infringement allegations and an identification of potential points of contention cannot be conducted. No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
As the complaint was not provided, the asserted claims and the specific infringement theories are unknown. Consequently, it is not possible to identify key claim terms whose construction will be central to the dispute.
VI. Other Allegations
The provided summons does not contain the complaint, and therefore the factual bases for any allegations of indirect or willful infringement are not available for analysis.
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
Based on the general subject matter of the patents and the nature of the parties, the case may turn on several key questions for the court, should a complaint be filed and served asserting these or similar patents.
- A central question will likely concern the scope of the method claims: Can the administration of a nutritional supplement to a consumer be found to constitute practicing a patented method of "ameliorating the effects of a neurological disorder" as recited in representative claims (e.g., ’803 Patent, Claim 1), particularly in the context of products marketed for general wellness rather than specific disease treatment?
- A key factual issue will likely be one of compositional identity: What evidence will be presented to establish that the magnesium compound in the accused nutritional supplement is the specific "magnesium threonate" required by many of the patents' independent claims, and does it meet any other compositional or dosage limitations defined in the patents?