Guangzhou Shuimo Jiahe Trading Co Ltd v. Neurocentria Inc

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Guangzhou Shuimo Jiahe Trading Co., Ltd. (China)
  • Defendant: Neurocentria, Inc. (California)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: West Atlantic Law Firm, PLLC
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-01929, N.D. Ill., 02/20/2026
• Venue Allegations: Plaintiff asserts venue is proper in the Northern District of Illinois because Defendant purposefully directed patent enforcement activities into the district by filing an infringement complaint through Amazon’s marketplace program, which targeted Plaintiff’s product listings offered for sale to customers in Illinois. Plaintiff also cites a test purchase of Defendant's product delivered to an address in Chicago.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment that its nutritional gummy products do not infringe Defendant’s U.S. Patent No. 8,637,061, and/or that the patent is invalid, following Defendant's accusation of infringement made through an e-commerce enforcement program.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to nutritional supplements, specifically magnesium compositions formulated to enhance bioavailability and treat or prevent neurological disorders and cognitive decline.
• Key Procedural History: Defendant accused Plaintiff of infringement via a complaint submitted to Amazon's intellectual property enforcement program. Subsequently, on January 13, 2026, the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office ordered an ex parte reexamination of the patent-in-suit, having found substantial new questions of patentability based on prior art. The ongoing reexamination raises questions about the validity and potential scope of the patent's claims.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2007-03-22	U.S. Patent No. 8,637,061 Priority Date
2014-01-28	U.S. Patent No. 8,637,061 Issues
2026-01-13	USPTO orders ex parte reexamination of the ’061 Patent
2026-02-12	Defendant submits infringement complaint to Amazon
2026-02-19	Plaintiff causes test purchase of Defendant's product
2026-02-20	Complaint for Declaratory Judgment filed

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

U.S. Patent No. 8,637,061 - "MAGNESIUM COMPOSITIONS AND USES THEREOF FOR NEUROLOGICAL DISORDERS"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent's background section notes that while magnesium is crucial for human health, particularly for neurological functions like synaptic plasticity, dietary intake is often inadequate (Compl. Ex. A, ’061 Patent, col. 1:18-61). Commercially available magnesium supplements often suffer from poor bioavailability, low elemental magnesium content, or undesirable side effects like diarrhea and gastrointestinal distress, limiting their effectiveness (Compl. Ex. A, ’061 Patent, col. 2:8-28).
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides compositions containing a magnesium-counter ion compound, with a focus on magnesium threonate, designed to improve magnesium bioavailability and absorption (Compl. Ex. A, ’061 Patent, abstract; Compl. Ex. A, ’061 Patent, col. 4:12-15). These compositions are intended for oral administration to maintain or enhance cognitive function, learning, and memory, and to treat various neurological disorders associated with magnesium deficiency, such as mild cognitive impairment and Alzheimer's disease (Compl. Ex. A, ’061 Patent, abstract; Compl. Ex. A, ’061 Patent, col. 4:6-19).
• Technical Importance: The invention purports to offer a more effective method of delivering magnesium to the body and brain, thereby addressing the limitations of prior supplements and providing a potential therapeutic avenue for age-related cognitive decline and other neurological conditions (Compl. Ex. A, ’061 Patent, col. 1:39-56).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint seeks a declaration of non-infringement and invalidity regarding "one or more claims" of the patent (Compl. ¶29; Compl. Prayer for Relief ¶B). Independent claim 1 is representative of the subject matter.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A dosage form formulated for oral administration to a subject comprising magnesium threonate,
  • wherein the dosage form comprises at least 10 mg magnesium threonate,
  • and wherein the dosage form is a solid, semi-solid, semi-liquid, or a gel.
• The complaint does not specify any dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

The accused product is identified as "Plaintiff's Gummies," sold on Amazon with the ASIN B0C3XL9LWH (Compl. ¶3; Compl. ¶29).

Functionality and Market Context

The complaint describes the product only as "Gummies" and a "Non-Infringing Product" (Compl. ¶3). It is sold through Plaintiff's Amazon storefront, and Defendant's enforcement action threatened the removal of the product listing, which allegedly adversely affected Plaintiff's business operations in the United States (Compl. ¶8; Compl. ¶21; Compl. ¶22).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

As this is a complaint for declaratory judgment of non-infringement, the Plaintiff does not set forth a detailed infringement theory against its own product. The complaint states only that the Defendant "has contended that Plaintiff's product... infringes one or more claims of the '061 Patent" (Compl. ¶29). It then avers that the product "does not meet each and every limitation of any asserted claim" (Compl. ¶31). The complaint does not provide sufficient detail to construct a claim chart summarizing the Defendant’s infringement allegations.

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

Identified Points of Contention

Based on the language of claim 1 of the ’061 Patent and the identification of the accused product as "Gummies," the infringement analysis will likely raise several primary questions:

• Compositional Question: A central factual question will be whether the "Plaintiff's Gummies" contain "magnesium threonate" as required by the claim. This may involve chemical analysis to determine the precise form of magnesium used in the product.
• Dosage Question: The analysis will need to determine if the gummies contain "at least 10 mg [of] magnesium threonate" per dosage form, which appears to be a straightforward quantitative question.
• Physical Form Question: The court may need to consider whether a "gummy" falls within the plain and ordinary meaning of "a solid, semi-solid, semi-liquid, or a gel." Given the physical properties of a typical gummy, it may read on one or more of these claimed forms, particularly "gel" or "semi-solid."

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "magnesium threonate"

• Context and Importance: This term defines the specific active ingredient required by the patent's claims. The entire infringement analysis hinges on whether the accused "Gummies" contain this particular chemical compound. Practitioners may focus on this term to determine if the accused product uses a different magnesium salt (e.g., magnesium citrate, magnesium oxide) that would fall outside the literal scope of the claims.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The term is a specific chemical name, which typically limits broad interpretation. However, a party might argue that minor variations, impurities, or different stereoisomers still fall within the scope of the term as understood by a person of ordinary skill in the art. The patent discusses magnesium threonate as a preferred embodiment among a class of magnesium-counter ion compounds (Compl. Ex. A, ’061 Patent, col. 4:12-15).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The specification consistently refers to "magnesium threonate" as a distinct compound and provides a chemical formula illustration, suggesting it refers to a specific molecular structure (Compl. Ex. A, ’061 Patent, col. 24:55-64). A defendant would likely argue the term has a precise chemical meaning that does not encompass other magnesium salts.

• The Term: "dosage form... is a solid, semi-solid, semi-liquid, or a gel"

• Context and Importance: This limitation defines the physical state of the claimed invention. As the accused product is a "gummy," its classification as one of these forms will be necessary for a finding of infringement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discloses a wide array of dosage forms, including tablets, capsules, food bars, cereal products, bakery products, and beverages, indicating an intent to cover a broad range of physical forms for oral consumption (Compl. Ex. A, ’061 Patent, col. 29:1-12). This context may support a broad reading of the terms "solid," "semi-solid," and "gel" to encompass products like gummies.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: A party could argue that these terms have distinct technical meanings in the pharmaceutical or food science arts and that a "gummy" may not meet the specific definition of any of them. However, the patent does not provide explicit definitions that would narrow the terms from their plain and ordinary meaning.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint makes a general averment of non-infringement, stating it "has not directly or indirectly infringed" (Compl. ¶32). It does not provide any specific facts alleged by the Defendant that would form the basis of an indirect infringement claim.
• Willful Infringement: The complaint does not mention any allegation of willful infringement made by the Defendant.

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

The resolution of this declaratory judgment action will likely depend on the answers to two central questions:

• A core question will be one of validity and claim scope: What impact will the ongoing ex parte reexamination at the USPTO have on the asserted claims of the ’061 Patent? The reexamination could result in the cancellation of claims or amendments that narrow their scope, potentially resolving the infringement dispute entirely.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of chemical composition: Does the plaintiff's "Gummies" product, as sold on Amazon, contain the specific compound "magnesium threonate" as required by the independent claims of the ’061 Patent, or does it utilize a different, non-infringing form of magnesium?