The opinion of the court was delivered by: Debevoise, Senior District Judge
Plaintiff, Advanced Oral Technologies, L.L.C. (alternatively "AOT"), instituted this suit against Defendant, Nutrex Research, Inc. ("Nutrex"), and others, seeking to enjoin the sale of a bodybuilding supplement that incorrectly lists one of Plaintiff's patented substances among its ingredients. In an opinion dated January 20, 2011, this Court dismissed four of the six counts of Plaintiff's complaint-those seeking damages and injunctive relief for tortious interference, misappropriation, accounting, and civil RICO. Presently before the court is Plaintiff's motion to amend its complaint and revive the failed causes of action.
For the reasons set forth below, Plaintiff's Motion is DENIED.
The factual account that follows is based upon evidence presented by the parties in connection with a preliminary injunction hearing.*fn1 Plaintiff is the exclusive licensee and sole manufacturer of a patented molecule known as 2nitrooxy ethyl2amino 3methylbutanoate (the "Molecule"), which is used in a bodybuilding supplement called eNoxide. Nutrex is the manufacturer of a different bodybuilding supplement known as "Hemo Rage Black" (sometimes referred to herein as the "Product"), which is essentially a cocktail of dozens of other bodybuilding supplements. Nutrex sells Hemo Rage Black through various retailers, including Defendants Bodybuilding.com, Inc., Vitamin Shoppe, Inc., Europa Sports Products, Inc. ("Europa"), and General Nutrition Centers, Inc. ("GNC").
When first introduced in August of 2009, the Product label listed 56 different ingredients, including the Molecule. The ingredients were listed on the back of the bottle in size 6.5 font.
Defendants admit that Hemo Rage Black does not, and never did, actually contain the Molecule. Rather, the Product label incorrectly listed the Molecule among the ingredients.*fn2
Plaintiff discovered the inaccurate labels soon after Hemo Rage Black was introduced. It initially thought Nutrex was violating its patent for the Molecule but soon discovered that the Molecule was not actually included in the Product. In September of 2009, Plaintiff contacted Nutrex and demanded that it stop distributing the Product with the erroneous labels. The parties attempted to negotiate a license agreement under which Nutrex would have paid a fee for use of the Molecule and the Molecule would have been included in the Product. However negotiations broke down by the end of March 2010.
On April 1, 2010, Nutrex removed the reference to the Molecule from its website and other advertising and had new labels printed for all future manufacturing runs. To correct the faulty labels on existing inventory held in its warehouse, Nutrex crossed out the reference to the Molecule with a black marker. Co-Defendants Vitamin Shoppe, GNC, Europa, and Bodybuilding.com (the "Co-Defendants") also removed all references to the Molecule in their advertising materials. It is unclear whether the Co-Defendants attempted to cross out the reference to the Molecule on the mislabeled bottles they held in inventory.
Plaintiff asserts that it was informed by Nutrex in April of 2010 that all references to the Molecule had been removed from the Product. Nevertheless it appears that there are still mislabeled bottles available for sale. In September of 2010 Plaintiff discovered that mislabeled bottles of Hemo Rage Black could be purchased from each of the Co-Defendants.
Plaintiff filed this action on October 14, 2010, seeking to prohibit Defendants from selling mislabeled bottles of Hemo Rage Black and to recover damages from past sales. Plaintiff's original complaint pled numerous causes of action, including: (1) Unfair Competition under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act; (2) Civil RICO; (3) Tortious Interference with Economic Advantage; (4) Unfair Competition and Misappropriation under N.J.S.A 56:4-1; (5) Common Law Misappropriation; and (6) Accounting.
In an order dated January 20, 2011, the Court dismissed Counts Two (Civil RICO), Three (Tortious Interference), Five (Common Law Misappropriation), and Six (Accounting) of Plaintiff's complaint for failure to adequately plead a cause of action. By order of the same date, Plaintiff was given permission to file a motion to amend. Plaintiff now asks this Court for leave to ...