DCT
8:22-cv-02232
Tripharma LLC v. Med HOMEPAGE Inc
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Tripharma, LLC (Delaware); Things of That Nature, Inc. (California)
- Defendant: MED HOMEPAGE, INC. dba HOPE SCIENCE (Washington); Kim Vanderlinden (Individual)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Winthrop Law Group, P.C.
Case Identification: 8:22-cv-02232, C.D. Cal., 12/13/2022
Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged based on Defendants' business activities directed at California residents, sales within the district via interactive websites, and Defendant Kim Vanderlinden's residency and business operations within the judicial district.
Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendants' nutritional supplement products infringe patents related to esterified fatty acid compositions and that Defendants are engaging in false marking by advertising their products with a patent number they do not have rights to use.
Technical Context: The technology concerns chemical compositions, specifically esterified fatty acids, for topical and oral administration to treat inflammatory conditions such as arthritis and periodontal disease.
Key Procedural History: The complaint details a complex history rooted in the bankruptcy of Imagenetix, Inc., the original owner of the asserted intellectual property. Plaintiffs allege they acquired the patents-in-suit through an assignment from the Imagenetix bankruptcy estate in October 2020. Significantly, the complaint alleges that Defendants, as part of a March 2020 settlement in the same bankruptcy case, had previously agreed to terminate any rights to use Imagenetix's intellectual property. Plaintiffs also allege sending a cease-and-desist letter to Defendants in May 2022.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2003-03-20 | Earliest Priority Date for ’111 and ’914 Patents |
| 2009-11-03 | U.S. Patent No. 7,612,111 Issues |
| 2010-08-17 | U.S. Patent No. 7,776,914 Issues |
| 2012-12-17 | Non-party Imagenetix, Inc. files for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy |
| 2016-12-08 | Imagenetix bankruptcy case converted to Chapter 7 |
| 2020-03-06 | Bankruptcy Court approves settlement terminating Defendants' rights to use Imagenetix IP |
| 2020-10-07 | Plaintiff TriPharma acquires the patents-in-suit from the Imagenetix bankruptcy estate |
| 2022-03-25 | Plaintiff TriPharma assigns the patents-in-suit to Plaintiff Things of That Nature, Inc. |
| 2022-05-05 | Plaintiffs send Cease-and-Desist letter to Defendants |
| 2022-12-13 | Complaint Filed |
II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis
U.S. Patent No. 7,612,111 - "ESTERIFIED FATTY ACID COMPOSITION"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7612111, "ESTERIFIED FATTY ACID COMPOSITION," issued November 3, 2009.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent describes a need for effective treatments for arthritis and other inflammatory conditions that avoid the potentially serious gastrointestinal and renal side effects associated with traditional non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) (’111 Patent, col. 1:36-42).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a composition comprising specific esterified fatty acids (fatty acids chemically bonded to cetyl alcohol) combined with carriers like lecithin and olive oil. This formulation is intended to be administered orally or topically to reduce inflammation, with the patent claiming benefits such as increased stability, a reduction of pro-inflammatory arachidonic acid in cells, and enhanced cellular regulation (’111 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:1-4).
- Technical Importance: The technology proposed a therapeutic alternative for inflammatory joint diseases that aimed for greater safety compared to the existing standard of care at the time (’111 Patent, col. 1:43-52).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims. Independent claim 1 is representative of the patent's scope.
- Claim 1 (Independent): A method claim requiring:
- A method of treating periodontal disease
- comprising administering an effective amount of a composition
- wherein the composition comprises a cetylated fatty acid from a specific list (e.g., cetylated myristic acid)
- and a carrier or excipient selected from the group consisting of lecithin, olive oil, and tocophenol.
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
U.S. Patent No. 7,776,914 - "ESTERIFIED FATTY ACID COMPOSITION"
- Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7776914, "ESTERIFIED FATTY ACID COMPOSITION," issued August 17, 2010.
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: As a continuation of the application leading to the ’111 Patent, this patent addresses the same problem: the need for safer, effective treatments for inflammatory conditions like arthritis (’914 Patent, col. 1:49-59).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is substantively the same as that of the ’111 Patent, describing compositions of esterified fatty acids for treating inflammatory disorders. The detailed description and technical approach are nearly identical to the parent patent (’914 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:10-18).
- Technical Importance: The technology provided a continuing line of patent protection for the esterified fatty acid compositions developed to offer a safer alternative to traditional NSAIDs (’914 Patent, col. 1:42-48).
Key Claims at a Glance
- The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims. Independent claim 1 is representative.
- Claim 1 (Independent): A method claim requiring:
- A method of treating periodontal disease
- comprising administering an effective amount of a composition
- wherein the composition comprises a cetylated fatty acid from a specific list (e.g., cetylated myristic acid).
- The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
- The "Active Again" product line, including "Active Again Pain Cream," as well as related "Pet Products" (Compl. ¶¶ 22, 27-28).
Functionality and Market Context
- The accused product is a topical cream marketed for pain relief in "sore muscles and joints" (Compl. Ex. E, p. 80). The complaint alleges the product contains "cetylated oils" and is derived from the technology of the ’111 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 27-28).
- Crucially, the product's marketing materials on the Hope Science website, included as an exhibit, explicitly state that "Active Again is a major medical advancement that was awarded a U.S. patent in 2009 (#7,612,111) for its unprecedented properties" (Compl. ¶ 26; Ex. E, p. 80). Exhibit E provides a screenshot of the 'Active Again Pain Cream 4 Ounce' product page from the Hope Science website, showing the product container and marketing text (Compl. Ex. E, p. 80). The complaint alleges Defendants built goodwill for these products based on past infringement and are now selling a nearly identical product under a new label (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 27).
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint does not contain a claim chart or detailed infringement allegations mapping product features to specific claim limitations. The core of the infringement allegation is that Defendants "manufacture, market and sell product which infringes on these existing Patents, and specifically the ’111 Patent" (Compl. ¶ 22). The following chart summarizes the plausible infringement theory for a representative claim based on the complaint's general allegations and exhibits.
'111 Patent Infringement Allegations
| Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) | Alleged Infringing Functionality | Complaint Citation | Patent Citation |
|---|---|---|---|
| A method of treating periodontal disease... | The complaint alleges that Defendants' "Active Again" products, marketed for joint and muscle pain, infringe the patent. It does not allege the product is used for periodontal disease. | ¶¶22, 26, 31; Ex. E | col. 9:41-42 |
| ...comprising administering an effective amount of a composition comprising a cetylated fatty acid... | The "Active Again" website states the product is a topical cream containing "esterified oils" that "absorb through the skin to reach sore muscles and joints." The complaint alleges the product is derived from the '111 patent. | ¶27; Ex. E | col. 3:56-61 |
| ...and a carrier or an excipient... selected from the group consisting of lecithin, olive oil, and tocophenol. | The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the specific carriers or excipients used in the accused products. | N/A | col. 9:46-49 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: A primary issue is the mismatch between the asserted patents' independent claims and the accused product's marketed use. All independent claims in both the '111 and '914 patents are explicitly for a "method of treating periodontal disease." The complaint, however, accuses a topical cream marketed for "sore muscles and joints" of infringement (Compl. Ex. E). This raises the critical question of whether infringement of the asserted claims can be proven, as the complaint does not allege that Defendants induce or that their customers perform the claimed method of treating periodontal disease.
- Technical Questions: The complaint does not provide an ingredient list for the "Active Again" products. It relies on the product's marketing claim of containing "esterified oils" and its alleged derivation from the patent's technology (Compl. ¶¶ 27-28). A key evidentiary question will be whether the accused product's formulation actually contains the specific "cetylated fatty acid[s]" and "carrier[s]" recited in the claims.
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
- The Term: "treating periodontal disease"
- Context and Importance: This term appears in every independent claim of both asserted patents and is foundational to the infringement analysis. The accused products are marketed for muscle and joint pain, not periodontal (gum) disease. The construction of this term will likely determine whether the infringement claim is viable.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A plaintiff may argue that the specification's repeated references to treating "arthritis and other inflammatory joint conditions" (e.g., ’111 Patent, col. 2:45-46), "psoriasis, lupus and heart/cardiovascular disease" (’111 Patent, col. 2:3-4) demonstrate that the inventors viewed "periodontal disease" as just one example of a broader class of inflammatory conditions the invention was intended to treat.
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A defendant may argue that the plain language of the claims is controlling. Every independent claim in both patents is explicitly and unambiguously limited to methods for "treating periodontal disease" (e.g., ’111 Patent, cl. 1, 17, 20). This suggests that while the specification describes a wider field, the inventors deliberately chose to claim only this specific application, thereby dedicating other uses to the public.
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: The complaint does not plead specific facts to support indirect infringement. For the asserted method claims, this would require alleging that Defendants knew of the patent and actively encouraged or instructed its customers to use the "Active Again" cream in a manner that practices the claimed method (i.e., for treating periodontal disease). The complaint makes no such allegation.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges facts that may support willfulness. It asserts that Defendants had knowledge of the patents and Plaintiffs' rights due to a prior settlement in the Imagenetix bankruptcy case, in which Defendants allegedly agreed to cease using the intellectual property (Compl. ¶¶ 15, 25, 33). Further, it alleges Defendants received a cease-and-desist letter before the suit was filed and continued to infringe (Compl. ¶ 29). The explicit reference to the ’111 patent number on the accused product's website provides strong evidence of knowledge (Compl. ¶ 26; Ex. E).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A core issue will be one of claim scope versus accused conduct: Can a method claim for "treating periodontal disease" be infringed by a product marketed and sold as a topical cream for muscle and joint pain? The resolution of this threshold question may be dispositive of the patent infringement portion of the case.
- A central theme of the case appears to be false marking and unfair competition, rather than traditional patent infringement. The most direct evidence presented in the complaint is Defendants' explicit use of the ’111 patent number on their product website. A key question for the court will be whether this conduct constitutes a violation of the False Marking Act or other business torts, irrespective of whether the product actually infringes the patent's claims.
- A final question will be one of intent and history: What is the legal effect of the prior bankruptcy settlement in which Defendants allegedly relinquished all rights to the intellectual property? This history, combined with the explicit reference to the patent number on their product, will be central to Plaintiffs' claims for willfulness and enhanced damages.