DCT
2:25-cv-05871
Neurocentria Inc v. MANDO Intl LLC
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Neurocentria, Inc. and Threotech LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Mando International, LLC d/b/a Kappy Nutrition (Texas)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Fortis LLP
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-05871, C.D. Cal., 06/27/2025
- Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the Central District of California because Defendant conducts business in the district, including selling and advertising the accused products through its interactive website accessible to residents of the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant’s magnesium L-threonate nutritional supplements infringe patents directed to magnesium compositions and their methods of use for improving cognitive and neurological function.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to the use of specific magnesium compounds, particularly magnesium L-threonate, to increase magnesium bioavailability in the brain to address age-related cognitive decline and other neurological conditions.
- Key Procedural History: The asserted patents are part of a larger family and are subject to terminal disclaimers, a fact that may become relevant in determining the patents' effective expiration dates. No other significant procedural history is mentioned.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2007-03-22 | Earliest Priority Date for Asserted Patents |
| 2012-03-27 | U.S. Patent No. 8,142,803 Issues |
| 2014-01-28 | U.S. Patent No. 8,637,061 Issues |
| 2018-01-01 | Alleged Launch Date of Accused Product |
| 2025-06-27 | Complaint Filing Date |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 8,637,061 - "MAGNESIUM COMPOSITIONS AND USES THEREOF FOR NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,637,061, “MAGNESIUM COMPOSITIONS AND USES THEREOF FOR NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS,” issued January 28, 2014.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent family’s background describes that while magnesium is crucial for synaptic plasticity and cognitive function, many people have deficient dietary intake (Compl. ¶15; ’803 Patent, col. 1:55-64). Furthermore, commercially available magnesium supplements often have low bioavailability, meaning they are not efficiently absorbed by the body, or may cause undesirable side effects like diarrhea, which limits their effectiveness for neurological applications (’803 Patent, col. 2:5-24).
- The Patented Solution: The invention provides specific oral dosage forms of magnesium threonate, a particular magnesium compound shown to be effective at increasing brain magnesium levels and enhancing cognitive function (’061 Patent, Abstract). The patent describes specific formulations that are stable and suitable for oral administration to deliver a neurologically effective amount of magnesium (’061 Patent, col. 3:1-13).
- Technical Importance: The technology purports to offer a practical and effective oral supplement for addressing magnesium deficiencies in the brain, which are linked to cognitive decline and neurological disorders (’061 Patent, col. 1:41-54).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 of the ’061 Patent (Compl. ¶35).
- Claim 1 of the ’061 Patent recites the following essential elements:
- A dosage form formulated for oral administration
- comprising magnesium threonate
- wherein the dosage form comprises at least 10 mg magnesium threonate
- and wherein the dosage form is a solid, semi-solid, semi-liquid, or a gel
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶36).
U.S. Patent No. 8,142,803 - "MAGNESIUM COMPOSITIONS AND USES THEREOF FOR NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 8,142,803, “MAGNESIUM COMPOSITIONS AND USES THEREOF FOR NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS,” issued March 27, 2012.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent addresses the loss of synaptic plasticity in the aging or diseased brain, which can lead to conditions from mild cognitive impairment (MCI) to Alzheimer's disease (AD) (’803 Patent, col. 1:36-45). It notes the difficulty in elevating brain magnesium levels with conventional supplements due to poor absorption and bioavailability (’803 Patent, col. 2:5-14).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for treating such conditions by administering magnesium threonate. The patent asserts that this specific compound is particularly effective at elevating brain magnesium, thereby enhancing synaptic plasticity and ameliorating the effects of neurological disorders (’803 Patent, Abstract; col. 1:28-35). The detailed description includes experimental data from animal models purporting to show improved memory and learning following administration of magnesium threonate (’803 Patent, Figs. 7-16).
- Technical Importance: The invention provides a method of using a specific, bioavailable magnesium compound to target the physiological basis of cognitive decline, rather than just providing a general mineral supplement (’803 Patent, col. 1:28-35).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint asserts at least independent claim 1 of the ’803 Patent (Compl. ¶42).
- Claim 1 of the ’803 Patent recites the following essential elements:
- A method of ameliorating the effects of a neurological disorder
- the method comprising administering to a subject in need for supplementing a magnesium-containing compound (MCC)
- in an amount that is effective to ameliorate the effects of said neurological disorder
- wherein the MCC comprises magnesium threonate
- The complaint reserves the right to assert additional claims (Compl. ¶43).
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The complaint identifies Defendant’s “Kappy Brain Boost” nutritional supplement as an accused instrumentality (Compl. ¶2).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that Kappy Brain Boost is an oral supplement sold in capsule form containing magnesium L-threonate as its primary active ingredient (Compl. ¶21). The complaint includes a screenshot from Defendant's website, which allegedly shows the product marketed for “cognitive support,” “memory enhancement,” and “overall brain health” (Compl. ¶22, Ex. A). It is alleged that the product is sold directly to consumers nationwide through Defendant’s website (Compl. ¶9).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
U.S. Patent No. 8,637,061 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A dosage form formulated for oral administration | The accused Kappy Brain Boost product is sold as a capsule intended to be swallowed by consumers. | ¶35a | col. 28:46-48 |
| comprising magnesium threonate | The product’s packaging and website list “Magnesium L-threonate” as the principal active ingredient. The complaint includes a screenshot of the product's supplement facts panel (Compl. Ex. A). | ¶35b | col. 27:8-12 |
| wherein the dosage form comprises at least 10 mg magnesium threonate | The product’s supplement facts panel allegedly states that a single serving provides an amount of elemental magnesium from magnesium L-threonate well in excess of 10 mg. | ¶35c | col. 29:16-19 |
| and wherein the dosage form is a solid, semi-solid, semi-liquid, or a gel | The accused product is a powder contained within a capsule, which the complaint alleges constitutes a solid dosage form. | ¶35d | col. 28:50-54 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Factual Questions: For the ’061 Patent, the infringement analysis appears to be primarily factual. A key question for the court will be whether the accused product, upon testing, actually contains magnesium threonate in the amounts specified on its label.
- Scope Questions: While seemingly straightforward, a potential dispute could arise over the definition of "dosage form." A defendant might argue that the powder itself is the composition and the capsule is merely packaging, though such an argument may face challenges under established legal precedent.
U.S. Patent No. 8,142,803 Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of ameliorating the effects of a neurological disorder | Defendant’s marketing materials on its website and product packaging allegedly instruct users to take Kappy Brain Boost to "support memory and cognitive function," which Plaintiffs allege constitutes ameliorating the effects of a neurological disorder as defined in the patent. | ¶42a | col. 1:1-4 |
| the method comprising administering to a subject in need...a magnesium-containing compound (MCC) | Defendant’s instructions direct consumers seeking cognitive support (the "subject in need") to ingest the Kappy Brain Boost product (the "MCC"). | ¶42b | col. 64:8-13 |
| in an amount that is effective to ameliorate the effects of said neurological disorder | Defendant provides dosage instructions (e.g., “Take 3 capsules daily”) that it promotes as being effective for achieving the advertised cognitive benefits. | ¶42c | col. 65:10-14 |
| wherein the MCC comprises magnesium threonate | The compound administered according to the method is Kappy Brain Boost, which is alleged to contain magnesium threonate. | ¶42d | col. 65:14 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A central dispute will likely concern the scope of the term "neurological disorder". Defendant may argue that marketing a supplement for general "cognitive support" or "brain health" does not constitute a method of treating a "disorder." Plaintiffs may counter by pointing to the specification, which includes conditions like "mild cognitive impairment" and age-related memory issues, arguing this brings the accused activities within the claim's scope (’803 Patent, Abstract).
- Legal Questions (Inducement): Infringement of this method claim is alleged under a theory of inducement. A key legal question will be whether Defendant’s marketing and instructions demonstrate the specific intent required to encourage its customers to perform the claimed method, particularly if its marketing language is framed in terms of general wellness rather than treatment of a specific condition.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "neurological disorder" (from ’803 Patent, Claim 1)
- Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical to the scope of the method claim. The dispute will likely focus on whether this term is limited to clinically diagnosed diseases or if it can also encompass sub-clinical, age-related conditions that a consumer might self-diagnose and seek a supplement for. Practitioners may focus on this term because it directly impacts whether Defendant's marketing of a wellness supplement can be seen as inducing infringement of a method to treat a medical disorder.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent’s abstract lists a wide range of conditions, including "mild cognitive impairment," "anxiety disorder," and "mood disorder," suggesting the term is not limited to severe neurodegenerative diseases like Alzheimer's (’803 Patent, Abstract).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant might argue that the patent's consistent reference to specific diseases like Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, and ALS throughout the specification limits the general term "neurological disorder" to conditions requiring medical diagnosis and treatment, not general wellness support (’803 Patent, col. 4:10-13).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendant induces infringement of the ’803 method patent (Compl. ¶41). The factual basis alleged is that Defendant’s website, packaging, and marketing materials instruct and encourage end-users to take Kappy Brain Boost for the patented purpose of improving cognitive function, thereby performing the steps of the claimed method (Compl. ¶42).
- Willful Infringement: Willfulness is alleged on the basis that Defendant was purportedly aware of Plaintiffs' patents or the underlying technology (Compl. ¶50). The complaint alleges that Defendant’s marketing materials cite scientific literature authored by the inventors of the patents-in-suit, suggesting pre-suit knowledge of their pioneering work in the field of magnesium threonate for cognitive health (Compl. ¶18).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
This case presents two distinct but related infringement theories. The key questions upon which the litigation will likely turn are:
- A core issue will be one of definitional scope: can the claim term "neurological disorder", as used in the context of the ’803 method patent, be construed to cover the general cognitive and memory support functions for which Defendant markets its nutritional supplement, or is the term limited to clinically diagnosed medical conditions?
- A second issue will be one of factual proof: for the ’061 composition patent, the analysis will be largely evidentiary. Does the accused Kappy Brain Boost product, as sold, contain at least 10 mg of magnesium threonate in a solid oral dosage form, thereby infringing the claim literally?