DCT

1:25-cv-05159

VDF Futureceuticals Inc v. Aura Scientific LLC

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 1:25-cv-05159, N.D. Ga., 09/10/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the Northern District of Georgia because Defendant committed acts of infringement in the district and maintains a regular and established place of business there.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s "NeuroRush" dietary supplement ingredient infringes three patents related to low-mycotoxin coffee fruit extracts and methods of using such extracts to improve cognitive performance.
  • Technical Context: The technology centers on processing traditionally discarded parts of the coffee cherry into safe, commercially viable extracts for use in dietary supplements aimed at enhancing brain health and cognitive function.
  • Key Procedural History: The complaint alleges that U.S. Patent No. 7,815,959 was the subject of an Ex Parte Reexamination, with a certificate issued in 2013, which may inform the scope of its claims. The complaint also details an extensive history of alleged pre-suit knowledge by Defendant’s CEO, including direct business inquiries, licensing discussions, and receipt of marketing materials that identified Plaintiff’s patents years before the filing of the suit.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2003-04-16 Earliest Priority Date for '959 Patent
2010-10-19 U.S. Patent No. 7,815,959 Issues
2013-03-15 Earliest Priority Date for '261 and '500 Patents
2013-07-17 '959 Patent Ex Parte Reexamination Certificate Issues
2022-10-18 U.S. Patent No. 11,471,500 Issues
2024-07-16 U.S. Patent No. 12,036,261 Issues
2024-11-13 Accused NeuroRush Product Promotional Material Published
2025-09-03 Plaintiff sends Cease and Desist Letter to Defendant
2025-09-10 Complaint Filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 7,815,959 - “Low-Mycotoxin Coffee Cherry Products”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 7,815,959, “Low-Mycotoxin Coffee Cherry Products,” issued October 19, 2010 (the "'959 Patent"). (Compl. ¶25).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The outer layers of the coffee cherry—the pulp, mucilage, and hull—were historically discarded as waste because they spoil rapidly after harvest, leading to the production of hazardous substances known as mycotoxins (Compl. ¶¶ 14, 16).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for safely processing whole coffee cherries into extracts for human consumption. The core of the solution is a specific protocol for harvesting and quickly drying the whole cherries to limit microbial growth, thereby ensuring that mycotoxin levels in the final product remain below specified safe thresholds ('959 Patent, col. 4:35-51; Compl. ¶¶ 18-19). This process enables the beneficial components of the coffee cherry, such as antioxidants, to be utilized commercially (Compl. ¶17).
  • Technical Importance: The patented process created a viable commercial use for what the coffee industry traditionally considered a waste byproduct, opening a new category of food and beverage ingredients (Compl. ¶20).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 1, a product-by-process claim (Compl. ¶27).
  • The essential process steps to prepare the claimed "extract" include:
    • Harvesting and drying whole coffee cherries under a protocol that limits microbial growth, resulting in dried cherries with mycotoxin levels below specified limits (e.g., <20 ppb for total aflatoxins).
    • Comminuting the dried cherries and combining them with a solvent to form an extraction mixture.
    • Filtering the mixture to produce the extract, with optional solvent removal.

U.S. Patent No. 12,036,261 - “Compositions and Methods of BDNF Activation”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 12,036,261, “Compositions and Methods of BDNF Activation,” issued July 16, 2024 (the "’261 Patent"). (Compl. ¶28).

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that while Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor (BDNF) is a critical protein for learning, memory, and neuronal health, there was a need for compositions that could substantially and reliably increase its levels in mammals ('261 Patent, col. 1:47-54).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention is a method for improving cognitive functions by administering a composition containing a specific type of coffee fruit extract. The patent describes the discovery that oral administration of whole coffee fruit extracts (distinct from coffee beans) with a low caffeine content and a minimum concentration of procyanidins can significantly increase blood levels of BDNF ('261 Patent, col. 2:7-14; Abstract).
  • Technical Importance: The invention provides a method of using an orally administered composition to increase levels of BDNF, a key neuroprotein associated with cognitive health and function ('261 Patent, col. 1:20-24).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint asserts independent Claim 14, a method claim (Compl. ¶29).
  • The essential elements of the method include:
    • Administering a composition comprising a preparation of coffee fruit to a mammal.
    • The preparation is an extract from whole coffee fruit (including pulp, husk, hull, and/or mucilage).
    • The preparation has a caffeine content of less than 2%.
    • The dosage is between 5 mg and 500 mg, and the preparation has a procyanidin concentration of at least 5 µg/g.
    • The composition is administered at a dosage to "acutely increase" at least one of learning, memory, and alertness.

U.S. Patent No. 11,471,500 - “Compositions and Methods of BDNF Activation”

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 11471500, “Compositions and Methods of BDNF Activation,” issued October 18, 2022 (the "’500 Patent"). (Compl. ¶30).
  • Technology Synopsis: This patent, which shares a specification with the ’261 Patent, is directed to methods of increasing a specific form of Brain-Derived Neurotrophic Factor. The invention is based on the discovery that administering a whole coffee fruit extract increases the level of exosomal BDNF in the blood, a form that is understood to be capable of crossing the blood-brain barrier ('500 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:7-14).
  • Asserted Claims: Independent Claim 1 (Compl. ¶31).
  • Accused Features: The administration of the Accused Product (NeuroRush) to consumers is alleged to infringe the patent by causing an increase in the consumers' exosomal BDNF levels, consistent with the claimed method (Compl. ¶¶ 61, 141-142).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The accused instrumentality is "NeuroRush," a nutraceutical ingredient that Defendant Aura makes, uses, and sells in the United States (Compl. ¶43).

Functionality and Market Context

  • NeuroRush is described in promotional materials as a "coffee fruit extract" that "harnesses the power of the entire coffee cherry, not just the bean" (Compl. ¶¶ 52, 53). A diagram of a coffee cherry is included in the complaint to illustrate that an "entire coffee cherry" consists of the pulp, mucilage, and hull in addition to the bean (Compl. ¶54, Ex. 10).
  • The product is marketed for its cognitive benefits, such as supporting "memory, focus, and steady energy," while avoiding the "downsides of caffeine dependency" (Compl. ¶¶ 50, 52). Promotional materials show the product packaged in sample bags (Compl. ¶50, Ex. 7).
  • Plaintiff alleges that its own testing of an Accused Product sample confirms that it contains less than 1% caffeine and has a procyanidin concentration of 267.8 µg/g (Compl. ¶¶ 48, 49).
  • Aura allegedly markets NeuroRush as an ingredient for various dietary supplements, including nootropics and pre-workout products, and instructs customers on its inclusion in these applications (Compl. ¶¶ 64-65). An image from Aura's promotional materials depicts icons for applications such as "Nootropics" and "Functional Beverages" (Compl. ¶65, Ex. 8).
  • The complaint further alleges that Aura points to clinical studies conducted on Plaintiff's own "NeuroFactor" product to support claims that NeuroRush "works" the same way to increase exosomal BDNF (Compl. ¶¶ 58-61).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'959 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
An extract for use in combination with a food product for human use... NeuroRush is an extract sold as an ingredient for dietary supplements intended for human consumption and is combined into food products. ¶43, ¶45, ¶64 col. 1:6-10
wherein the extract is prepared by the steps of: harvesting a plurality of whole coffee cherries and drying the whole coffee cherries under a protocol that limits microbial growth to an extent such that the dried whole coffee cherries exhibit mycotoxin levels that are below [specified limits]... Plaintiff's testing of NeuroRush allegedly confirmed its mycotoxin levels fall within the claimed limits. The complaint alleges this is a direct result of the coffee fruit being dried under a protocol that limits microbial growth as required by the claim. ¶71, ¶72 col. 4:35-40
comminuting the whole dried coffee cherries, and combining the comminuted dried coffee cherries with a solvent to form an extraction mixture; and The complaint alleges that manufacturing NeuroRush requires the coffee fruit to be comminuted and, because it is labeled an "extract," combined with a solvent. ¶73, ¶74 col. 3:65-67
filtering the extraction mixture to produce an extract, and optionally removing the solvent from the extract. The complaint alleges that because NeuroRush is sold as a powder extract, the manufacturing process necessarily includes filtering the extraction mixture and removing the solvent. ¶75, ¶76 col. 8:1-5
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: The asserted claim is a product-by-process claim, meaning infringement requires proving that the accused product is made by the claimed method. A central question for the court will be whether the product's final characteristics (e.g., low mycotoxin levels) are sufficient evidence to infer that Defendant's manufacturing process meets every step of the claimed protocol.
    • Technical Questions: What evidence does the complaint provide that Defendant's actual manufacturing process includes "drying the whole coffee cherries under a protocol that limits microbial growth"? The complaint bases this allegation on the low mycotoxin content of the final product (Compl. ¶72), an inference that may be a point of significant factual dispute.

’261 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 14) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method of improving at least one of learning, memory, and alertness in a mammal, comprising: administering to the mammal a composition... Defendant markets NeuroRush for cognitive benefits, including "memory, focus," and directs its customers to incorporate it into supplements that end users (mammals) consume. Third-party supplements containing NeuroRush make claims such as "Sharp Focus" (Compl. p. 20) and "Laser Focus" (Compl. p. 22). ¶50, ¶66, ¶118 col. 8:11-14
...that comprises a preparation of a coffee fruit... an extract from whole coffee fruit, wherein the whole coffee fruit includes pulp, and husk, hull, and/or mucilage... NeuroRush is promoted as a "coffee fruit extract" derived from the "entire coffee cherry," which by definition includes the pulp, mucilage, and hull. ¶52, ¶53, ¶54 col. 7:38-40
...and wherein the preparation has a caffeine content of less than 2%... Plaintiff's testing of the Accused Product allegedly confirmed a caffeine content of less than 1%. ¶48 col. 10:55-58
...and wherein the dosage is between 5 mg and 500 mg, and wherein the preparation has a total procyanidin concentration of at least 5 µg/g... Defendant's customers are directed to use NeuroRush in dosages (e.g., 100 mg) within the claimed range. Plaintiff's testing allegedly confirmed a procyanidin concentration of 267.8 µg/g, exceeding the claim's requirement. ¶49, ¶62, ¶117 col. 8:36-41
...and wherein the composition is administered at a dosage to acutely increase at least one of the learning, the memory, and the alertness. Defendant allegedly claims that its recommended dosages of NeuroRush are effective to achieve cognitive improvements. ¶62 col. 8:46-49
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Scope Questions: A likely point of dispute is whether marketing claims of providing "focus" or "mental clarity" are sufficient to meet the claim limitation of "improving at least one of learning, memory, and alertness." The required degree and nature of the "improvement" will be a key issue.
    • Technical Questions: The claim requires administration at a dosage that "acutely" increases the specified cognitive functions. The complaint relies on marketing materials to support this element (Compl. ¶62). A factual question will be what evidence exists that the accused administration of NeuroRush causes an acute effect, as defined by the patent, rather than a more general or long-term wellness benefit.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "a protocol that limits microbial growth" (’959 Patent, Claim 1)

    • Context and Importance: The definition of this term is central to proving infringement of the product-by-process claim. The dispute may turn on whether this term describes any process that achieves the low-mycotoxin result, or if it implies more specific, undisclosed process parameters.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The claim language itself appears to define the protocol functionally by its outcome: "...a protocol that limits microbial growth to an extent such that the dried whole coffee cherries exhibit mycotoxin levels that are below [the specified limits]" ('959 Patent, cl. 1). This language may support an interpretation where any process achieving that result is covered.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification describes a specific embodiment of drying using "a dry air drier at about 140° F." ('959 Patent, col. 4:55-57). A defendant could argue this exemplary process limits the scope of the more general term "protocol."

  • The Term: "acutely increase" (’261 Patent, Claim 14)

    • Context and Importance: The method requires administration at a dosage that produces an "acute" increase in cognitive function. The temporal and qualitative nature of "acutely" will be critical. Practitioners may focus on this term because dietary supplement claims often involve disputes over whether marketing language meets the specific functional requirements of a method patent.
    • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
      • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification provides a time frame, stating "the acute effect is observed within a time span of about 30 minutes to 3 hours" ('261 Patent, col. 8:46-49). This explicit definition may support a broad construction tied to this time window.
      • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent includes figures depicting clinical data ('261 Patent, Fig. 4). A defendant might argue that the term "increase" should be construed to require a statistically significant effect similar to that demonstrated in the patent's own examples, a higher bar than marketing claims might support.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges both induced and contributory infringement of the ’261 and ’500 Patents.
    • Inducement: The allegations are based on Defendant’s marketing materials and directions to its customers, which allegedly encourage and instruct downstream supplement makers and end users to use NeuroRush in an infringing manner for its claimed cognitive benefits (Compl. ¶¶ 115, 119, 145).
    • Contributory: The complaint alleges NeuroRush is a material component especially made for an infringing use and is not a staple article of commerce with substantial non-infringing uses. This is supported by the allegation that Plaintiff's NeuroFactor is the only other such product on the market (Compl. ¶¶ 126, 128, 154).
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre- and post-suit knowledge. The allegations of pre-suit knowledge are extensive, citing years of direct communications between Defendant's CEO and Plaintiff regarding Plaintiff's patented NeuroFactor product, including the CEO’s receipt of a licensing letter that explicitly identified the ’959 Patent (Compl. ¶¶ 87-91, 111). Willfulness is also alleged based on Defendant’s continued conduct after receiving a cease and desist letter on September 3, 2025 (Compl. ¶¶ 106, 112).

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

  • A core issue will be one of process inference: for the ’959 Patent, can the plaintiff prove, based on the chemical characteristics of the accused final product, that the defendant must have used the specific multi-step manufacturing process required by the product-by-process claim, or will direct evidence of the process be required?
  • A second key issue will be one of functional scope: for the ’261 and ’500 method patents, are the marketing claims for the accused dietary supplement—such as "Sharp Focus" and "cognitive clarity"—sufficient to meet the patents' requirements of "improving" and "acutely increasing" specific cognitive functions like learning and memory?
  • Finally, the detailed allegations of the defendant's CEO having direct, multi-year engagement with the plaintiff regarding the patented technology raises a significant question of intent: does this history demonstrate that the alleged infringement was objectively reckless, potentially leading to a finding of willfulness and enhanced damages?