DCT
2:25-cv-01471
Eight IP LLC v. Element Nutrition Inc
Key Events
Amended Complaint
I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information
- Parties & Counsel:
- Plaintiff: Eight IP, LLC (Delaware)
- Defendant: Element Nutrition, Inc. (Ontario, Canada) and PROMINO BRANDS, INC. (Ontario, Canada)
- Plaintiff’s Counsel: Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd.; Price, Parkinson & Kerr, PLLC
- Case Identification: 2:25-cv-01471, D. Nev., 08/13/2025
- Venue Allegations: Plaintiff alleges venue is proper because Defendants consented to jurisdiction in the District of Nevada through prior agreements and because infringement has occurred in the district.
- Core Dispute: Plaintiff, an exclusive licensee, alleges that Defendants, former sublicensees, are infringing a patent on amino acid supplementation for muscle recovery by continuing to sell products after their sublicense agreement was terminated for non-payment of royalties.
- Technical Context: The technology relates to nutritional science, specifically formulating essential amino acid compositions to enhance muscle strength and function, a significant market for athletic performance and geriatric health.
- Key Procedural History: The central event preceding the lawsuit is the termination of a sublicense agreement between the parties. Plaintiff alleges that Defendants failed to make required minimum royalty payments, causing the agreement to automatically terminate, thereby revoking any right to practice the patented technology.
Case Timeline
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| 2011-11-18 | U.S. Patent No. 9,364,463 Priority Date |
| 2016-06-14 | U.S. Patent No. 9,364,463 Issue Date |
| 2023-12-04 | Sublicense agreement effective between Eight IP and Element |
| 2024-09-05 | Addendum to sublicense agreement effective between Eight IP and Promino Brands |
| 2024-10-15 | Alleged due date for minimum royalty payment that Defendants failed to make |
| 2024-10-16 | Date by which Plaintiff alleges Defendants’ rights under the sublicense agreement terminated |
| 2025-08-13 | 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”
- Issued: June 14, 2016
- Short Name: The “’463 Patent”
The Invention Explained
- Problem Addressed: The patent background describes the problem of muscle atrophy and the associated morbidity and mortality that follows major muscle damage from trauma, surgery, or extended bed rest, particularly in older adults. It notes that conventional nutritional approaches, such as high-protein diets, have been "largely unconvincing" in addressing this specific metabolic stress response ('463 Patent, col. 1:26-51).
- The Patented Solution: The invention is a method involving the administration of a specific composition of free essential amino acids (EAA) and arginine. This formulation is designed to optimally stimulate the recovery of muscle strength and function during rehabilitation ('463 Patent, col. 2:11-25). The patent posits that this precise blend is particularly effective, even for older adults where muscle recovery is typically problematic ('463 Patent, col. 2:22-25).
- Technical Importance: The invention provided a targeted nutritional intervention intended to expedite recovery from significant muscle stress, a critical factor in patient outcomes for orthopedic surgery and other traumatic events ('463 Patent, col. 1:35-44).
Key Claims at a Glance
The complaint does not identify specific asserted claims, but its allegations map onto the patent’s independent method claims.
- Independent Claim 1: A method for improving recovery of muscle strength, comprising the following essential elements:
- Administering to a subject a composition
- Wherein the composition comprises specific weight-by-weight percentages of nine amino acids: histidine, isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, valine, and tryptophan
- And wherein the composition also comprises a specific weight-by-weight percentage of arginine.
- Independent Claim 9: A method for improving muscle strength, comprising the same essential elements as Claim 1.
III. The Accused Instrumentality
Product Identification
The "Rejuvenate" and "Promino" product lines (Compl. ¶¶ 20-22).
Functionality and Market Context
- The complaint alleges that the Rejuvenate product line is advertised as "clinically proven to support muscle recovery" (Compl. ¶21).
- The Promino product is allegedly marketed as a "patented muscle activator which builds muscle, increases strength, improves performance, and speeds recovery" (Compl. ¶22).
- Both product lines are alleged to "contain[] the amino acid blend identified in the 463 Patent" and are sold through various channels in the United States, including Amazon and other websites (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 22, 26). Defendants are also alleged to identify the ’463 Patent on product packaging and marketing websites (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 24).
- No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.
IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations
The complaint alleges that Defendants' marketing and sale of the Rejuvenate and Promino products, which are said to contain the patented amino acid blend, constitute infringement (Compl. ¶¶ 32, 43). As the asserted claims are method claims requiring "administering" a composition, the infringement theory appears to be one of indirect infringement, where Defendants are alleged to induce their customers to practice the patented method.
’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... | Defendants market and sell the Rejuvenate and Promino products for uses such as supporting "muscle recovery," "build[ing] muscle," and "speed[ing] recovery," thereby encouraging customers to administer the composition. | ¶¶ 21, 22, 32 | col. 6:51-57 |
| comprising the following concentrations of amino acids in terms of w/w %: about 1 to 2% of histidine, about 9 to 11% of isoleucine, about 35 to 38% of leucine, about 14 to 17% of lysine, about 2 to 4% of methionine, about 5 to 7% of phenylalanine, about 8 to 9% of threonine, about 9 to 11% of valine, about 0.01 to 0.2% of tryptophan, and about 8 to 11% of arginine... | The Rejuvenate and Promino products are alleged to "contain[] the amino acid blend identified in the 463 Patent." | ¶¶ 21, 22, 43 | col. 10, Table 3 |
- Identified Points of Contention:
- Scope Questions: The claims recite concentrations with the term "about." A potential point of contention will be the scope of this term and whether the precise formulation of the accused products, once revealed in discovery, falls within a proper construction of the claimed ranges.
- Technical Questions: A primary factual question is whether the accused products actually contain the specific blend of nine essential amino acids plus arginine in the weight-for-weight percentages required by the claims. The complaint makes this allegation conclusorily, and it will be a key subject for discovery and expert analysis (Compl. ¶¶ 21, 22).
V. Key Claim Terms for Construction
The Term: "administering to a subject"
- Context and Importance: This term is critical because the patent claims a method of use, while the Defendants are alleged to be sellers of a product. Plaintiff's infringement case will likely depend on showing that Defendants induced their customers (the "subjects") to perform the "administering" step. The definition of this term will be central to the indirect infringement analysis.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses administration in general terms, including oral administration via a nutritional supplement, which may support a view that any conventional consumption by a user meets the "administering" limitation ('463 Patent, col. 7:26-38).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: Defendants may argue that "administering" in the context of improving "recovery of muscle strength" implies a specific therapeutic or medical context, such as post-surgery rehabilitation, as opposed to general athletic use ('463 Patent, col. 9:62-col. 10:14).
The Term: "about"
- Context and Importance: This term modifies every numerical concentration range in the independent claims. Its construction will directly determine the literal scope of the claims and whether minor deviations in the accused products' formulations constitute infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because infringement could hinge on whether the accused product's formula is "close enough" to the claimed ranges.
- Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
- Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification uses the term "about" extensively when describing various embodiments and ranges, suggesting the patentee did not intend to be limited to the exact numerical values recited ('463 Patent, col. 5:58-col. 6:45).
- Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent provides a very specific exemplary embodiment in Table 3 with values stated to one or two decimal places, which could be used to argue that "about" was intended to cover only minor rounding or measurement variances ('463 Patent, col. 10, Table 3).
VI. Other Allegations
- Indirect Infringement: While not explicitly pled using the term "inducement," the facts alleged support such a claim. The complaint states that Defendants market and sell the products for the patented purpose (muscle recovery), identify the ’463 Patent on packaging and websites, and make advertising claims related to the patent's benefits (Compl. ¶¶ 21-25, 33, 43). These allegations suggest Defendants encouraged and instructed customers to use the products in an infringing manner.
- Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges that Defendants were former sublicensees of the ’463 Patent and therefore had actual knowledge of it (Compl. ¶¶ 5, 12). It further alleges that Defendants identify the patent on their products and websites and were notified by Plaintiff that their license had terminated (Compl. ¶¶ 23, 24, 30). This alleged knowledge, combined with continued sales post-termination, forms the basis for the willfulness claim and the request for treble damages (Compl. ¶44; Prayer for Relief ¶3).
VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case
- A central factual question will be one of compositional identity: does discovery and testing confirm that Defendants' Rejuvenate and Promino products contain the specific blend of ten amino acids within the weight-percentage ranges required by the asserted claims of the ’463 Patent?
- A key legal issue will be one of indirect liability: as the patent claims a method of use, can the Plaintiff establish that Defendants' marketing, product labeling, and online advertising constitute active inducement, making them liable for the "administering" step performed by end-user consumers?
- The case presents a fundamental question of post-termination conduct: how will the court delineate the boundary between a breach of contract dispute, arising from the terminated sublicense agreement, and the separate tort of patent infringement, given that the same act—the continued sale of products—is alleged to constitute both?