Hi-Tech Pharma invalidates CarnoSyn + 4 more Beta Alanine Patents

VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
NORCROSS, Ga., Sept. 6, 2017 /PRNewswire/ -- Today we eviscerated (5) Natural Alternatives International, Inc. ("NAI"; NASDAQ: NAII) patents related to Beta-Alanine. NAI alleges to be a leading formulator, manufacturer and marketer of customized nutritional supplements. However, Hi-Tech had warned NAI that their patent portfolio was bogus and they proceeded with filing a lawsuit anyway. NAI had sued dozens of supplement manufacturers and raw material importers over the past 5 years trying to intimidate them into stopping selling beta alanine.

The five Beta Alanine patents, issued by the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office is part of NAI's portfolio covering CarnoSyn® beta-alanine. On September 16, 2016, Plaintiff NAI filed a complaint against Hi-Tech. (16-cv-2343-Doc. No. 1.) Subsequently, Plaintiff filed a first amended complaint against Hi-Tech, alleging claims for: (1) breach of contract; (2) patent infringement; and (3) violation of the Lanham Act § 32. (16-cv-2343-Doc. No. 21, FAC 197-217.) In its claim for patent infringement against Hi-Tech, Plaintiff alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 5,965,596, 7,825,084, RE45,947, 8,993,610, and 8,470,865. However, in a ruling by the Honorable MARILYN L. HUFF all 5 listed patents were invalidated.

The Supreme Court has "'long held that this provision contains an important implicit exception[:] Laws of nature, natural phenomena, and abstract ideas are not patentable.'" Ass'n for Molecular Pathology v. Myriad Genetics, Inc., 133 S. Ct. 2107, 2116 (2013). The Supreme Court has devised a two-stage framework to determine whether a claim falls outside the scope of section 101." Affinity Labs of Texas, LLC v. DIRECTV, LLC, 838 F.3d 1253, 1257 (Fed. Cir. 2016); see Alice Corp. Pty. v. CLS Bank Int'l, 134 S. Ct. 2347, 2355 (2014). "The prescribed approach requires a court to determine (1) whether the claim is directed to a patent-ineligible concept, i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea, and if so, (2) whether the elements of the claim, considered both individually and as an ordered combination, add enough to transform the nature of the claim into a patent-eligible application."

Thus, the five beta alanine patents acknowledges that beta-alanine is a natural occurring phenomenon. Accordingly, claim 1 of '084 patent is directed to excluded subject matter – specifically beta-alanine, a natural phenomenon – thereby satisfying step one of the Alice inquiry. Here, the inventive concept described in claim 1 of the '084 patent is placing a specific dosage of beta-alanine into a human dietary supplement. See '084 Patent at 22:26-29. The '084 patent acknowledges that placing a natural substance into a dietary supplement to increase the function of tissues is conventional activity. Because placing a natural substance into a human dietary supplement to increase the function of tissues when consumed is a conventional activity, employing a dietary supplement to administer beta-alanine – a natural phenomenon – to achieve a high level of carnosine synthesis in a human – applying a natural law – is insufficient to render the claims at issue patent eligible.

Additionally, Hi-Tech was awarded legal fees in 2017 from a similar dispute with Thermolife.

Recently Hi-Tech finished driving a stake into the ground in our relentless fight against patent trolls – we were awarded our legal fees from the Third most litigious patent troll in America – Thermolife International and Ron Kramer" said Jared Wheat, President of Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals. To that end, Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. ("Hi-Tech") moved for attorney fees against Plaintiffs The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University and ThermoLife International, LLC (collectively "Plaintiffs") in accordance with the requirements set forth in Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(d)(2)(B), Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals recovered $913,370.006 in attorney fees and $25,071.46 in expenses.

Beginning in March 2013, Thermolife filed eighty-one related patent infringement lawsuits in this Court, including the instant case regarding Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals. The company prevailed in its argument that this case was "exceptional" due to the fact that Plaintiffs (1) lacked a reasonable basis to allege infringement; and (2) pursued a file-and-settle strategy typical of "patent trolls" while simultaneously engaging in "questionable litigation conduct." Hi-Tech also successfully argued that this case is "exceptional" because of Plaintiffs' aggressive litigation tactics; namely that Thermolife and Stanford sued many defendants in order to extract nuisance-value settlements, which is typical behavior for a "patent troll."

NAI tried to get creative and argue that the inventive concept of the patents-in-suit is to "unnaturally over-supplement the normal/natural level of beta-alanine in the diet of an individual over time to force an override [in] the homeostatic nature of the individual's muscle tissue to achieve an unnatural high level of carnosine synthesis." But the Court ruled that even assuming NAI was correct, this inventive concept would still be insufficient to render the patents-in-suit subject matter eligible under § 101. This inventive concept as described by NAI still only describes a natural law: the relationship between beta-alanine in an individual's diet with the carnosine synthesis that occurs in the individual's tissue.

Hi-Tech hopes that after winning another high stakes patent case that companies would simply leave Hi-Tech alone. In the past 5 years Hi-Tech has been part of invalidating the following compounds: D-Aspartic acid, L-Citrulline, L-arginine, creatine nitrate and beta alanine. In sum, the '084 patent, the '947 patent, the '376 patent, the '596 patent, the '865 patent, and the '610 patent claim ineligible subject matter and, thus, are invalid under 35 U.S.C. § 101.16 Accordingly, the Court granted Hi-Tech' motions for judgment on the pleadings, and the Court dismisses NAI's claims for patent infringement with prejudice.
Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals Invalidates Five Beta-Alanine, CarnoSyn®, Patents Held by NAI


Mess with HTP in court, you're going to lose.

HOT DAYUM.
 
Big_Spaz

Big_Spaz

Board Sponsor
Awards
1
  • Established
Very nice win! I love to see all of these patent trolls go down. Hopefully Hi-Tech doesn't stop here.

And they win the DMAA battle as well (which they should) :)







-Spaz
 
MARK_

MARK_

Well-known member
Awards
0
Excellent! When will people learn
 
djbombsquad

djbombsquad

Board Sponsor
Awards
3
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
  • RockStar
What does this mean ? Ba is bunk?
 

kelvarnsen

Member
Awards
2
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
The funny thing about BA is I doubt barely anyone is even using it for it's studied purpose at the proper dose. I believe the study was 6g per day on Olympic swimmers for endurance.

Most supplements with BA are preworkouts that put a fraction of that in to give people the "tingles" so they think that some magical stim bomb spell is coming over them when in actuality the BA tingle has nothing to do with the stimulants.
 
ManimalPatB

ManimalPatB

Well-known member
Awards
0
Yeah Buddy!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
 
VaughnTrue

VaughnTrue

Well-known member
Awards
3
  • RockStar
  • Established
  • First Up Vote
The funny thing about BA is I doubt barely anyone is even using it for it's studied purpose at the proper dose. I believe the study was 6g per day on Olympic swimmers for endurance.

Most supplements with BA are preworkouts that put a fraction of that in to give people the "tingles" so they think that some magical stim bomb spell is coming over them when in actuality the BA tingle has nothing to do with the stimulants.
there are studies showing benefits from 3.2g-8g/day I believe.
 
Chuck Diesel

Chuck Diesel

Are you Diesel?
Awards
1
  • Established
What happens is someone gets the idea that they are going to file a "patent" for something they didn't invent. As in an effect of a naturally occurring alkaloid/supplement. Then what they do after being granted this patent (because the USPTO isn't a research organization) is sue everyone who uses the ingredient in a say performance enhancing dietary supplement. That's called a "patent trap".

In a basic sense it's like if Joe blow patented the use of creatine to enhance strength at a certain dose per day 20 yrs ago. Now since creatine occurs naturally in red meat and no one "invented" the effect of creatine, enforcing a patent for something that is not a new creation of an improvement on an existing creation is trolling.

It's easy to obtain a patent on anything that isn't already patented. That doesn't mean however that you actually "invented" something.

It's like saying you invented the color blue.
 
Synapsin

Synapsin

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
What happens is someone gets the idea that they are going to file a "patent" for something they didn't invent. As in an effect of a naturally occurring alkaloid/supplement. Then what they do after being granted this patent (because the USPTO isn't a research organization) is sue everyone who uses the ingredient in a say performance enhancing dietary supplement. That's called a "patent trap".

In a basic sense it's like if Joe blow patented the use of creatine to enhance strength at a certain dose per day 20 yrs ago. Now since creatine occurs naturally in red meat and no one "invented" the effect of creatine, enforcing a patent for something that is not a new creation of an improvement on an existing creation is trolling.

It's easy to obtain a patent on anything that isn't already patented. That doesn't mean however that you actually "invented" something.

It's like saying you invented the color blue.
Have you heard of...utility patents? lol
 
Chuck Diesel

Chuck Diesel

Are you Diesel?
Awards
1
  • Established
Have you heard of...utility patents? lol
Yeah opposite of a design patent is a Utility patent ie. a functional patent. First to claim doesn't mean you "invented" something. Filing of a patent and granting you one doesn't mean you invented something. The USPTO is a filing system. They do not verify the merits of trademarks and patents. So if you say you invented something and it's not already filed they take your word for it.

You can file a patent for the use of sun light to grow plants and they will give you the patent if it's not already patented.

Was your utility comment a joke?
 

USPlabsRep

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
What happens is someone gets the idea that they are going to file a "patent" for something they didn't invent. As in an effect of a naturally occurring alkaloid/supplement. Then what they do after being granted this patent (because the USPTO isn't a research organization) is sue everyone who uses the ingredient in a say performance enhancing dietary supplement. That's called a "patent trap".

In a basic sense it's like if Joe blow patented the use of creatine to enhance strength at a certain dose per day 20 yrs ago. Now since creatine occurs naturally in red meat and no one "invented" the effect of creatine, enforcing a patent for something that is not a new creation of an improvement on an existing creation is trolling.

It's easy to obtain a patent on anything that isn't already patented. That doesn't mean however that you actually "invented" something.

It's like saying you invented the color blue.
cool story says the guy that never patented anything...
 
Chuck Diesel

Chuck Diesel

Are you Diesel?
Awards
1
  • Established
everything is either love or hate on social media, not the truth anymore.
Do you have any thing relevant and knowledgeable to add to this thread? If not please don't quote me. I don't need alerts to useless comments.
 

USPlabsRep

Board Sponsor
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Do you have any thing relevant and knowledgeable to add to this thread? If not please don't quote me. I don't need alerts to useless comments.
Aside that your comment wasn't either relevant or knowledgeable or factual, no, i'm done with the color blue.
 
Synapsin

Synapsin

Well-known member
Awards
2
  • RockStar
  • Established
Yeah opposite of a design patent is a Utility patent ie. a functional patent. First to claim doesn't mean you "invented" something. Filing of a patent and granting you one doesn't mean you invented something. The USPTO is a filing system. They do not verify the merits of trademarks and patents. So if you say you invented something and it's not already filed they take your word for it.

You can file a patent for the use of sun light to grow plants and they will give you the patent if it's not already patented.

Was your utility comment a joke?
lol couldn't be more off. Have you ever even applied for one?
 

Similar threads


Top