Santa Ana, CA, April 14, 2016 – Judge Josephine L. Staton, United States District Court for the Central District of California, fully adopted the Plaintiff’s proposed construction of the disputed terms of U.S. Patent 5,569,676 (the “‘676 Patent”). In the case, Imagenetix, Inc. v. Robinson Pharma Inc., et al., Plaintiff Imagenetix, Inc. alleges that the Defendants, Robinson Pharma, Inc., Doctor’s Clinical, Inc., Gero Vita, Inc., Nutrivita Labs, Inc., and Vitastrong, Inc., infringe the ‘676 Patent. The Patent provides a method for the treatment of osteoarthritis through the use of the compound cetyl myristoleate. Defendants manufacture and sell the products Arthro-7 and Arthro-8, and encourage their use in the treatment of osteoarthritis.
Several of the Patent’s terms were in dispute: “treating,” “treating osteoarthritis,” and “therapeutically effective.” The Court held that the express language of the ‘676 patent “strongly favor adopting Plaintiff’s construction of [the terms].” In finding for Plaintiff’s proposed construction, the Court rejected numerous arguments raised by the Defendants, including that the Patent was indefinite, and that the scope of the Patent had been disclaimed during reexamination.