Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01466/USCOURTS-azd-2_12-cv-01466-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 830
Nature of Suit: Patent
Cause of Action: 35:271 Patent Infringement

---

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

WO 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA 

ThermoLife International, LLC, an Arizona 

limited liability company, 

Plaintiff, 

v. 

Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc., a Georgia 

corporation, 

Defendant.

No. CV-12-01466-PHX-DGC

ORDER 

 On September 4, 2012, Hi-Tech Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (“Hi-Tech”) filed a motion 

to dismiss or, in the alternative, a motion to stay pending patent reexamination. Doc. 11. 

ThermoLife International, LLC. (“ThermoLife”) filed its response on October 11, 2012, 

together with a motion to amend its complaint. Doc. 19. Hi-Tech then filed its reply. 

Doc. 23. For the reasons that follow, the Court will grant Hi-Tech’s motion to stay 

pending patent reexamination, deny Hi-Tech’s motion to dismiss without prejudice, and 

permit ThermoLife to amend its complaint after the patent reexamination is completed. 

I. Background. 

ThermoLife holds two U.S. Patents relating to the use of creatine nitrate to 

increase vasodilation in humans (No. 7,777,074 and No. 8,178,572). Doc. 1 ¶¶ 1, 3. The 

patented compound is typically used in dietary supplements, and ThermoLife claims that 

Hi-Tech has knowingly violated ThermoLife’s patents by manufacturing and selling its 

own line of products containing creatine nitrate and by selling creatine nitrate as a raw 

material to other companies who include it in dietary supplements. Id. ¶¶ 25-28. 

Case 2:12-cv-01466-DLR Document 26 Filed 12/18/12 Page 1 of 4
- 2 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 Before the present suit was filed, Gaspari Nutrition Inc., a third party, filed a 

request with the U.S. Patent office to reexamine patent No. 7,777,074. Doc. 11 at 2. 

Citing the reexamination, Hi-Tech moved to dismiss the case or, in the alternative, stay it 

pending the outcome of the reexamination. Doc. 11. ThermoLife concedes that the case 

should be stayed, but argues against dismissal and also moves to amend its complaint. 

Doc. 19 at 2. 

II. Legal Standard. 

 “[C]ourts have inherent power to stay their proceedings pending the reexamination 

of a patent.” Medicis Pharm. Corp. v. Upsher-Smith Laboratories, Inc., 486 F.Supp.2d 

990, 993 (D.Ariz.2007) (citing Gould v. Control Laser Corp., 705 F.2d 1340, 1342 

(Fed.Cir.1983)). Indeed, “there is a liberal policy in favor of granting motions to stay 

proceedings pending the outcome of USPTO reexamination . . . proceedings.” Id.

(internal citation and quotation marks omitted). “In determining whether to stay a case 

pending reexamination, a court must consider the following factors: (1) whether a stay 

will simplify the issues in question and trial of the case; (2) whether discovery is 

complete and whether a trial date has been set; and (3) whether a stay would unduly 

prejudice or present a clear tactical disadvantage to the nonmoving party.” Id. at 993-94. 

III. Analysis. 

 In another District of Arizona case brought by ThermoLife against another alleged 

infringer of the two patents, the court granted a stay pending the outcome of the PTO’s 

reexamination of the patent. ThermoLife International, LLC v. Vital Pharmaceuticals,

Inc., No. CV-11-2469-PHX-GMS, 2012 WL 3821815 (D. Ariz. Sept. 4, 2012). The court 

held that a stay was justified because the PTO determination would simplify the issues 

presented, the case was still in its early stages, and a stay would not unduly prejudice the 

nonmoving party. Id. 

 In the face of that decision, ThermoLife now concedes that a stay is appropriate. 

The only remaining issue is whether ThermoLife should be granted permission to amend 

its complaint. 

Case 2:12-cv-01466-DLR Document 26 Filed 12/18/12 Page 2 of 4
- 3 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

 ThermoLife argues that it may amend as of right because the parties stipulated to 

an extension of the deadline for its response to the motion to dismiss. ThermoLife did 

not, however, move for an extension of the Rule 15(a)(1)(B) deadline, and courts have 

held that that deadline is enforced separately from Rule 12 response deadlines. See e.g., 

Hayes v. District of Columbia, 275 F.R.D. 343, 345 (D.D.C. 2011); Webb v. Republic 

Bank & Trust Co., No. 3:11-CV-423-R, 2012 WL 2254205 (W.D. Ky. June 15, 2012). 

The Court finds that the time limit for amendment as of right has passed. 

 Even though ThermoLife may no longer amend as of right, the Court must “freely 

give leave [to amend] when justice so requires.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2). The Supreme 

Court has instructed that “this mandate is to be heeded.” Forman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 

182 (1962). The Court will apply this mandate and permit ThermoLife’s amendment, but 

concludes that the amendment should await completion of the patent reexamination. The 

reexamination may alter the patents and the claims at issue in this case. Rather than 

amend the complaint now and amend it again after reexamination is complete, the Court 

concludes that only one amendment should be filed. As a result, ThermoLife may amend 

its complaint once, within 20 days after completion of the reexamination.1

 If Hi-Tech 

believes that the amended complaint is defective, it may file a motion to dismiss after 

receiving the amended complaint. 

IT IS ORDERED: 

1. Hi-Tech’s motion to dismiss or, in the alternative, motion to stay pending 

patent reexamination (Doc. 11), is granted in part and denied in part. The motion to 

dismiss is denied without prejudice and the motion to stay is granted. 

 2. ThermoLife’s motion to amend its complaint (Doc. 19) is granted. 

ThermoLife may file an amended complaint within 20 days after completion of the patent 

reexamination. 

 3. This action is stayed pending resolution of the patent reexamination. 

 

1

 When filing a future amended complaint, ThermoLife shall not be limited to the 

changes in the proposed “Amended Complaint.” Doc. 19-1 at 2-19.

Case 2:12-cv-01466-DLR Document 26 Filed 12/18/12 Page 3 of 4
- 4 - 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

27 

28 

ThermoLife’s counsel is directed to file a status report on or before February 15, 2013,

and every 60 days thereafter until the stay is lifted. 

 4. Within five days of receiving notice of the outcome of the reexamination, 

ThermoLife shall file and serve a notice of the outcome on this Court and Hi-Tech. 

ThermoLife shall file an amended complaint within 20 days of the patent reexamination, 

and Hi-Tech may, if warranted, respond to the amended complaint with a motion to 

dismiss.

 5. The parties shall place a joint conference call to the Court within ten days

after the amended complaint is filed to discuss briefing of the motion to dismiss (if any) 

and a revised case management schedule. 

 Dated this 18th day of December, 2012. 

Case 2:12-cv-01466-DLR Document 26 Filed 12/18/12 Page 4 of 4