Eight IP v. Element Nutrition: Dietary Supplement Patent Suit Ends in Partial Voluntary Dismissal
Eight IP, LLC brought a patent infringement action in Nevada federal court against Element Nutrition, Canaccord Genuity Corp., and individual defendant Stuart Lowther, asserting US9364463B2 covering dietary supplement formulations sold through Amazon, CVS, Walgreens, and other major retailers. Claims against Lowther were voluntarily dismissed without prejudice after 428 days — with the suit against the remaining defendants also concluding by November 2024.
Retail supplement patent dispute: multi-defendant Nevada infringement action
On September 6, 2023, Eight IP, LLC filed a patent infringement complaint in the District of Nevada (Case No. 2:23-cv-01385) against Element Nutrition, Inc., Canaccord Genuity Corp., and individual defendant Stuart Lowther. The asserted patent, US9364463B2, relates to dietary supplement formulations — products sold under brands including Rejuvenate and Promino through major retail channels such as Amazon, CVS, Food Lion, Rexall, and Walgreens.
The case closed on November 7, 2024, after 428 days. The only disposition explicitly documented in the public record is a voluntary dismissal of claims against Stuart Lowther, filed pursuant to Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) and expressly stated to be without prejudice. The notice noted that Lowther had not been served with the complaint at the time of dismissal. The basis of termination for the case as a whole is recorded as voluntary dismissal, though the specific resolution as to Element Nutrition and Canaccord Genuity is not detailed in the available record.
The 428-day duration before closure, combined with the fact that Lowther was never served, suggests the individual defendant may have been named precautionarily and dropped once litigation strategy crystallised. What drove resolution of claims against the corporate defendants — whether settlement, further voluntary dismissal, or another mechanism — is not disclosed in the publicly available filings, leaving the full commercial resolution of the dispute uncertain.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 428 days
428 days — longer than the median voluntary dismissal timeline in district court patent cases
Voluntary dismissal against Lowther: what the public record reveals and omits
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): unilateral dismissal before service or answer
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss claims without a court order before the opposing party has served an answer or motion for summary judgment. Because Lowther had not been served, Eight IP could file this notice unilaterally. No judicial approval was required, and no merits ruling was made. The dismissal without prejudice means Eight IP retains the right to refile claims against Lowther in a future action, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
No merits adjudicationDismissal leaves the door open — but only for Lowther
A dismissal without prejudice does not bar the plaintiff from refiling the same claims. Eight IP expressly obtained this protection. However, the public record does not disclose the basis on which claims against Element Nutrition and Canaccord Genuity were resolved. Whether those claims were also voluntarily dismissed, settled, or terminated on other grounds is not stated in available filings — a meaningful gap in the publicly visible record.
Right to refile preservedLowther exits the case without being served or litigating
Stuart Lowther was named as a defendant but was never served with the complaint before Eight IP dismissed claims against him. This sequence — naming an individual, then dismissing before service — is consistent with a litigation strategy that initially cast a wide net across corporate and individual actors, then narrowed focus as the case progressed. Lowther faces no adverse ruling and has no judgment entered against him.
No judgment against LowtherRetail supplement supply chain: corporate defendants’ outcome unknown
The involvement of Canaccord Genuity — a financial services firm — alongside a supplement manufacturer is unusual and suggests the infringement theory may have extended to investment, distribution, or commercialisation activity. The resolution of claims against these corporate entities is not publicly disclosed. Companies in the dietary supplement and functional nutrition space operating across major retail channels should note that US9364463B2 remains a live enforcement asset for Eight IP.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Eight IP, LLC | Company | Patent assertion entity — holder of US9364463B2, a dietary supplement formulation patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Element Nutrition, Inc. | Company | Dietary supplement manufacturer; co-defendants include financial firm Canaccord Genuity Corp. and individual Stuart LowtherSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Canaccord Genuity Corp. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Stuart Lowther | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason M. Kerr | Attorney | Counsel for Eight IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | John P. Aldrich | Attorney | Counsel for Eight IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Aldrich Law Firm, Ltd. | Law Firm | Representing Eight IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Price Parkinson & Kerr, PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Eight IP, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Nevada District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The filed dismissal notice is narrow in scope: it applies expressly to Stuart Lowther only, invoked under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), and is explicitly without prejudice. The notice confirms Lowther was never served. No merits finding was made, no claim construction occurred, and the validity or infringement of US9364463B2 was not adjudicated. The disposition of claims against Element Nutrition and Canaccord Genuity — the primary corporate defendants — is not captured in this notice and remains unclear from the public record.
US9364463B2 — dietary supplement formulation and nutritional composition patent
US9364463B2 (application number US14/359213) is a granted US utility patent covering dietary supplement formulations. The asserted products — including Rejuvenate and Promino — were distributed through major retail and e-commerce channels including Amazon, CVS, Food Lion, Rexall, and Walgreens, indicating broad commercial reach. The patent’s claim scope, as asserted here, extends to finished supplement products sold at retail rather than solely upstream manufacturing processes.
Eight IP’s willingness to assert this patent against a multi-defendant group spanning a manufacturer, a financial firm, and an individual signals an aggressive enforcement posture. For the broader dietary supplement sector, the patent represents a potential barrier to commercialising similar formulations through mass-market retail. The absence of any invalidity ruling following 428 days of litigation means the patent’s enforceability is unchanged and its deterrence value — at least for near-identical product configurations — remains intact.
Should your supplement product be cleared against US9364463B2?
Any company formulating, distributing, or retailing dietary supplements — particularly protein, recovery, or nutritional compositions sold through Amazon, CVS, Walgreens, or similar channels — should treat US9364463B2 as a live enforcement risk. Eight IP has demonstrated readiness to file multi-defendant actions in federal court. R&D teams developing new SKUs and business development teams entering retail distribution agreements should flag this patent for review before launch.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim scope of US9364463B2 against your product formulation, identify prior art that may narrow its enforceability, and surface related patent families Eight IP or connected entities may hold. Eureka’s portfolio monitoring tools can also track new filings by Eight IP to give your legal team early warning of enforcement activity.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9364463B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar dietary supplement patent infringement cases in US district courts
Explore related patent infringement actions asserting dietary supplement formulation patents in US federal district courts, including multi-defendant retail supply chain disputes.
What this case signals for the dietary supplement IP landscape
Multi-defendant supplement patent actions are increasingly used to apply pressure across retail supply chains — this case illustrates the dynamics.
Naming individuals alongside corporations is a pressure tactic worth monitoring
Eight IP named an individual defendant who was never served and was quickly dismissed. This pattern — joining personal defendants to a corporate patent suit — can increase settlement pressure. IP counsel defending supplement companies should anticipate this strategy and advise key executives accordingly when infringement notices are received.
US9364463B2 remains active: FTO analysis is not optional for supplement brands
The case closed without any ruling on validity or infringement of US9364463B2. The patent is not invalidated, and Eight IP has demonstrated willingness to assert it against multi-channel retail products. Brands selling supplement formulations through Amazon, CVS, or Walgreens should conduct a current FTO assessment against this patent before expanding SKUs.
Eight v Element — key questions answered
Eight IP, LLC asserted US9364463B2 (application US14/359213), a dietary supplement formulation patent. The accused products — including Rejuvenate and Promino — were sold through Amazon, CVS, Food Lion, Rexall, and Walgreens.
Eight IP voluntarily dismissed claims against Stuart Lowther under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) without prejudice. The dismissal notice states that Lowther had not been served with the complaint. No merits ruling was made against him, and Eight IP retains the right to refile claims subject to applicable limitations periods.
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not adjudicate the validity or infringement of US9364463B2. Eight IP’s patent remains in force and enforceable. The company is not barred from asserting the same claims against Lowther or others in future proceedings, and no licensing or settlement terms have been made public.
Canaccord Genuity Corp. was named as a co-defendant alongside Element Nutrition and Stuart Lowther. The specific legal theory under which a financial services firm was joined to a dietary supplement patent infringement action is not detailed in publicly available filings. The resolution of claims against Canaccord Genuity is not disclosed in the case record.
No. The case closed via voluntary dismissal before any merits ruling was issued. The validity and infringement of US9364463B2 were not adjudicated. The patent remains granted and enforceable as of the case closure date of November 7, 2024.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.