Ron Kramer & Thermolife: Creatine Nitrate patent being challenged
by Anthony Roberts
Bruce Kneller and Rich Gaspari, of Gaspari Nutrition, have recently challenged the creatine nitrate patent (#7,777,074) held by Ron Kramer, owner of Thermolife. The patent challenge relies on the fact that the combination of an amino acid + a nitrate has been well documented in prior art and in fact has been mentioned in a prior patent. The challenge also points out that Kramer’s patent lawyer was well aware of these facts, and failed to disclose them (which is illegal).
The patent challenge has been granted and the USPTO is reexamining the issue:
Without getting into the potential merits of the product, or the probable downfalls, I can say that I’ve read and understand the basis for challenging the patent, the prior art, and the prior inventions, and I can’t imagine that the patent will stand. Kramer, has a different opinion:
“ThermoLife has nitrates all wrapped up… When the patent office examines the claims by Gaspari they will see the ignorance in their objections. The 1981 patent they site as disallowing composition patents on all of our compounds does not apply…. The 1981 patent only talks about a mixture of compounds not forming new compounds and has nothing to do with our invention…… but that is what happens when a counterfeiting steroid abuser* and a registered nurse try to interpret science….. Furthermore if we should lose composition for any of the other compounds based prior art it is really irrelevant for use of nitrates in sports nutrition as we have additional patents pending that stem from our original application in 2007 for vasodilatation, solubility, bioabsorption (increased amino acid uptake by muscle), athletic performance, and a host of other uses. “
First of all, it’s interesting that Ron Kramer was actually granted a patent by the USPTO. Very few people in this industry can say that. I certainly can’t.
Far better selling products (Geranamine, 6-OXO etc…) have failed to get a patent for the person who brought them to the nutritional industry, as have far more sound products (creatine, whey protein, etc…). Getting a patent is a big deal, but really says nothing about the product’s efficacy or worth, per se.
This product, as far as I can tell, is suppsed to fall into both the creatine and NO (**Nitric Oxide) categories. Generally, most sports nutrition companies have a full line of products that fall into the “big six” categories:
1. Protein powder (/and/or MRP)
2. Creatine
3. Fat burner (/and/or Stimulant)
4. Testosterone booster
5. Nitric Oxide
6. Multi-vitamin
While some companies focus entirely on one category (Met-Rx with Protein/MRPs), or omit a category here and there (VPX doesn’t have a test booster at the moment), these are generally the six accepted categories. By merging two of them, Creatine Nitrate may provide a substantial advantage to the company holding that patent, by allowing them to sell to potential customers from both categories.
But given the history of these two companies, it seems likely that the Gaspari patent challenge isn’t about obtaining the rights to produce creatine nitrate, but more about taking them away from Kramer.
source
by Anthony Roberts
Bruce Kneller and Rich Gaspari, of Gaspari Nutrition, have recently challenged the creatine nitrate patent (#7,777,074) held by Ron Kramer, owner of Thermolife. The patent challenge relies on the fact that the combination of an amino acid + a nitrate has been well documented in prior art and in fact has been mentioned in a prior patent. The challenge also points out that Kramer’s patent lawyer was well aware of these facts, and failed to disclose them (which is illegal).
The patent challenge has been granted and the USPTO is reexamining the issue:
Without getting into the potential merits of the product, or the probable downfalls, I can say that I’ve read and understand the basis for challenging the patent, the prior art, and the prior inventions, and I can’t imagine that the patent will stand. Kramer, has a different opinion:
“ThermoLife has nitrates all wrapped up… When the patent office examines the claims by Gaspari they will see the ignorance in their objections. The 1981 patent they site as disallowing composition patents on all of our compounds does not apply…. The 1981 patent only talks about a mixture of compounds not forming new compounds and has nothing to do with our invention…… but that is what happens when a counterfeiting steroid abuser* and a registered nurse try to interpret science….. Furthermore if we should lose composition for any of the other compounds based prior art it is really irrelevant for use of nitrates in sports nutrition as we have additional patents pending that stem from our original application in 2007 for vasodilatation, solubility, bioabsorption (increased amino acid uptake by muscle), athletic performance, and a host of other uses. “
First of all, it’s interesting that Ron Kramer was actually granted a patent by the USPTO. Very few people in this industry can say that. I certainly can’t.
Far better selling products (Geranamine, 6-OXO etc…) have failed to get a patent for the person who brought them to the nutritional industry, as have far more sound products (creatine, whey protein, etc…). Getting a patent is a big deal, but really says nothing about the product’s efficacy or worth, per se.
This product, as far as I can tell, is suppsed to fall into both the creatine and NO (**Nitric Oxide) categories. Generally, most sports nutrition companies have a full line of products that fall into the “big six” categories:
1. Protein powder (/and/or MRP)
2. Creatine
3. Fat burner (/and/or Stimulant)
4. Testosterone booster
5. Nitric Oxide
6. Multi-vitamin
While some companies focus entirely on one category (Met-Rx with Protein/MRPs), or omit a category here and there (VPX doesn’t have a test booster at the moment), these are generally the six accepted categories. By merging two of them, Creatine Nitrate may provide a substantial advantage to the company holding that patent, by allowing them to sell to potential customers from both categories.
But given the history of these two companies, it seems likely that the Gaspari patent challenge isn’t about obtaining the rights to produce creatine nitrate, but more about taking them away from Kramer.
source
