DCT

2:25-cv-01411

Eight IP LLC v. Element Nutrition Inc

Log In

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

  • Parties & Counsel:
  • Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01411, D. Nev., 08/04/2025
  • Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper in the District of Nevada because Defendant consented to personal jurisdiction in the district through prior agreements and because infringement of the patent-in-suit allegedly occurred in the district.
  • Core Dispute: Plaintiff, an exclusive licensee, alleges that Defendant’s amino acid supplements infringe a patent covering a specific nutritional formulation after Defendant's sublicense to the patent was allegedly terminated for failure to pay royalties.
  • Technical Context: The technology involves nutritional science, specifically amino acid compositions designed to improve muscle recovery, a field with applications in post-surgical rehabilitation, sports nutrition, and geriatric care.
  • Key Procedural History: The dispute arises from a prior business relationship. Plaintiff alleges it granted Defendant a sublicense to the patent-in-suit, which was subsequently terminated due to Defendant's alleged failure to make minimum royalty payments. The lawsuit frames Defendant as a former licensee whose continued sales of the relevant products became infringing acts after the license termination date.

Case Timeline

Date Event
2011-11-18 Earliest Priority Date ('463 Patent)
2016-06-14 '463 Patent Issue Date
2023-12-04 Sublicense Agreement Effective Date
2024-09-05 Sublicense Addendum Effective Date
2024-10-16 Alleged Sublicense Termination Date
2025-08-04 Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 9,364,463 - "Use of Amino Acid Supplementation for Improved Muscle Recovery"

  • Patent Identification: U.S. Patent No. 9,364,463, "Use of Amino Acid Supplementation for Improved Muscle Recovery," issued June 14, 2016.

The Invention Explained

  • Problem Addressed: The patent describes the significant morbidity, mortality, and functional dependence associated with major muscle tissue damage, particularly in older adults following trauma or surgery. It notes that conventional nutritional approaches, such as high-protein diets, have been "largely unconvincing" in addressing the resulting muscle atrophy (’463 Patent, col. 1:26-51).
  • The Patented Solution: The invention provides a method for improving muscle recovery by administering a specific nutritional composition. This composition contains a defined mixture of nine essential amino acids plus arginine, with a particularly high concentration of leucine, which the patent asserts is "optimal for improvement in muscle recovery" (’463 Patent, Abstract; col. 2:14-23). The formulation is intended to stimulate muscle strength and function more effectively than prior art solutions, especially during rehabilitation.
  • Technical Importance: The patented approach claims to be particularly advantageous for older adults, a demographic where the recovery of muscle strength after damage is often problematic, by providing a targeted nutritional intervention (’463 Patent, col. 2:23-25).

Key Claims at a Glance

  • The complaint does not specify which claims are asserted, suggesting Plaintiff reserves the right to assert any of the patent’s claims. The analysis below focuses on independent claim 1 as a representative method claim.
  • Independent Claim 1:
    • A method for improving recovery of muscle strength, comprising administering to a subject a composition with specific concentrations (by weight percentage) of:
      • about 1% to 2% histidine
      • about 9% to 11% isoleucine
      • about 35% to 38% leucine
      • about 14% to 17% lysine
      • about 2% to 4% methionine
      • about 5% to 7% phenylalanine
      • about 8% to 9% threonine
      • about 9% to 11% valine
      • about 0.01% to 0.2% tryptophan
      • about 8% to 11% arginine
    • The method results in the subject's muscle strength recovery being "improved relative to recovery of muscle strength in a subject not administered said amino acid composition."

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

  • The "Rejuvenate" and "Promino" product lines (Compl. ¶¶20-21).

Functionality and Market Context

  • The accused instrumentalities are nutritional supplements marketed and sold for muscle recovery. The complaint alleges these products are advertised as "clinically proven to support muscle recovery" (Rejuvenate) and as a "patented muscle activator which builds muscle, increases strength, improves performance, and speeds recovery" (Promino) (Compl. ¶¶20-21). The complaint further alleges that the products are sold throughout the United States via online channels, including Amazon and Defendant's own websites, and that their packaging and marketing materials identify the ’463 Patent (Compl. ¶¶22-23, 25, 32-33).
  • No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint does not provide a detailed claim chart. The allegations are summarized below based on the complaint's narrative theory of infringement against representative independent claim 1 of the ’463 Patent.

'463 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1) Alleged Infringing Functionality Complaint Citation Patent Citation
A method for improving recovery of muscle strength, the method comprising administering to a subject a composition comprising... Defendant markets and sells the Rejuvenate and Promino products for consumption by end-users to improve muscle recovery. ¶30, ¶31 col. 7:26-35
...the following concentrations of amino acids in terms of w/w %: [list of 11 amino acids with specific percentage ranges] The Rejuvenate and Promino products are alleged to "contain[] the amino acid blend identified in the 463 Patent." ¶20, ¶21, ¶42 col. 12:60-67
...wherein recovery of muscle strength of the subject is improved relative to recovery of muscle strength in a subject not administered said amino acid composition. Defendant allegedly markets the products with claims that they are "clinically proven to support muscle recovery" and that they "build[] muscle" and "speed[] recovery." ¶20, ¶21 col. 11:1-14
  • Identified Points of Contention:
    • Technical Question: A primary evidentiary question is whether the accused Rejuvenate and Promino products actually contain the eleven specified amino acids within the precise weight-by-weight percentage ranges required by the asserted claims. The complaint makes this allegation but does not provide supporting data, such as laboratory analysis, which would be required to prove infringement.
    • Scope Questions: The case's viability depends entirely on the alleged termination of the sublicense agreement. A threshold dispute will likely be whether the agreement was, in fact, validly terminated. If the court finds the license remained in effect, Defendant's actions would be authorized, and there could be no infringement (Compl. ¶¶27, 40-41).

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

  • The Term: "about"
  • Context and Importance: This term precedes every numerical range in independent claim 1. Its construction is critical because it will define the literal scope of the claimed formulation. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused products' compositions, if not identical to the specified percentages, fall within the range permitted by "about." Practitioners may focus on this term because its interpretation will determine the precision of evidence Plaintiff must present to prove infringement.
  • Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
    • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification repeatedly uses "about" when describing wide ranges of possible concentrations for each amino acid (e.g., "about 35 to about 386 w/w % of leucine"), suggesting the inventors did not intend for the claimed ranges to be interpreted as strict, absolute limits (’463 Patent, col. 5:29-34). This usage may support an argument that "about" imparts a degree of flexibility and functional equivalence.
    • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that the term should be interpreted more narrowly in the context of the specific, preferred embodiment disclosed in Table 3, which presents exact percentages (e.g., "36.4%" leucine) that were used in the patent's own clinical examples (’463 Patent, col. 12:50-51, Table 3). This could suggest that "about" only covers minor, insignificant variations from the values proven to be effective.

VI. Other Allegations

  • Indirect Infringement: The complaint focuses on direct infringement through Defendant's sales and does not contain a separate count for indirect infringement.
  • Willful Infringement: The complaint makes strong allegations of willfulness. It asserts that Defendant, as a former licensee, had actual knowledge of the ’463 Patent and its scope (Compl. ¶48). It further alleges that Defendant's own product packaging and websites explicitly reference the ’463 Patent, making it difficult for Defendant to claim ignorance of its existence (Compl. ¶¶22-23, 32-33). The alleged infringement began post-termination of the license, which, if proven, would support a finding of deliberate and willful infringement (Compl. ¶¶30, 42).

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

The resolution of this case appears to depend on the answers to three central questions:

  1. A threshold contractual question: Was the sublicense agreement between Plaintiff and Defendant validly terminated prior to the alleged infringing sales? If the license was still in force, the patent infringement claim fails.
  2. A key evidentiary question: Does Plaintiff possess technical evidence, such as chemical analysis, proving that Defendant’s "Rejuvenate" and "Promino" products contain the eleven amino acids in the specific weight-by-weight percentage ranges recited in the asserted claims?
  3. A critical claim construction question: What is the legal scope of the term "about" as used in the patent's claims? The court's interpretation of this term will define the boundaries of the claimed invention and directly impact the infringement analysis.