IP Law Daily, PATENT—D. Ariz.: Preliminary injunction denied in patent suit over Amazon delisting, (Apr 16, 2026)

By Jonathan Anderson

The party seeking the injunction failed to substantiate a likelihood of irreparable harm, a prerequisite for granting a preliminary injunction.

The Federal District Court in Phoenix declined to issue a preliminary injunction over an alleged wrongful assertion of a patent, concluding that the moving party failed to meet its burden to substantiate a likelihood of irreparable harm. Plaintiff argued that the removal of its products on Amazon caused lost sales and damage to its standing, status, and goodwill, and that its reputation would be damaged by losing a first-page Amazon listing and an inability to provide customers with orders. However, the court held that Plaintiff provided “almost no evidence to buttress its irreparable harm argument,” relying instead on allegations in the complaint and averments by a company executive, which the court described as “speculative and vague” (Evolution Nutraceuticals Inc. v. ThermoLife International LLC, No. 2:25-cv-00461-DJH (D. Ariz. Apr. 13, 2026)).

Background. Plaintiff, Evolution Nutraceuticals Inc. d/b/a Cardio Miracle, produces dietary supplements “to stimulate safe, sustained nitric oxide in the body’s vasculature.” Defendant, ThermoLife International LLC, supplies raw materials for dietary supplements. ThermoLife holds the Patent No. 8,455,531 (’531 Patent), which is “directed to nitrate-containing amino acid compositions and their use in a human or animal for increasing bioabsorption of amino acids or vasodilative characteristics.” The parties dispute whether Plaintiff infringed on the ‘531 Patent and whether it is valid. At issue is claim 62, which states: “A solid supplement formulation comprising: at least one non-ester nitrate compound; and at least one isolated amino acid compound selected from the group consisting of Agmatine, Beta Alanine, Citrulline, L-Histidine, Norvaline, Ornithine, Aspartic Acid, Cysteine, Glycine, Lysine, Methionine, Praline, Tyrosine, and Phenylalanine, wherein the at least one isolated amino acid compound is a separate compound than the at least one non-ester nitrate compound.”

In October 2024, Defendant complained to Amazon that products sold by Plaintiff infringed upon Defendant’s patented nitrate and requested that Amazon remove the products from its online platform. Amazon deactivated listings for the products that were the subject of Defendant’s complaint. In response, Plaintiff sent non-infringement letters to Amazon asking that the listings be restored. Amazon did not restore the listings, which prompted Plaintiff to bring suit alleging that the removal of the products from Amazon caused lost sales, loss of customer goodwill, and damage to Plaintiff’s rankings.

Plaintiff sought a declaratory judgment of non-infringement of the ‘531 Patent and a declaratory judgment of invalidity of the ‘531 Patent. Plaintiff argued that the products at issue held no more than a de minimis amount of nitrate and, therefore, did not infringe on Defendant’s ‘531 Patent. Plaintiff further claimed that, if the de minimis amount of nitrate in the products infringed the ‘531 Patent, then the Patent is invalid as obvious or anticipated by prior art supplements.

In April 2025, Plaintiff filed a Motion for a Preliminary Injunction to enjoin Defendant’s allegedly wrongful assertion of the ‘531 Patent and to compel Defendant to withdraw Amazon takedown requests. The parties stipulated to a partial injunction and agreed on expedited discovery. Defendant later moved to strike Plaintiff’s Reply in Support of its Motion, arguing that the Reply raised new factual arguments not presented in its Motion and were not responsive to arguments in Defendant’s Response. The court found that the Reply contained newly raised arguments, but considering discovery efforts, determined that the best course forward was to deny Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction without prejudice and with leave to re-file. Plaintiff subsequently filed a renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction.

Irreparable harm. The court denied Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction, concluding that Plaintiff failed to meet its burden to substantiate a likelihood of irreparable harm, a prerequisite for granting a preliminary injunction.

Plaintiff argued that the removal of the products caused lost sales and damage to its standing, status, and goodwill, which Plaintiff argued “is irreparable with money damages.” Plaintiff further argued that its “inability to supply customers threatens ‘reputation’ as a ‘dependable distributor’ and that its nonquantifiable damages include losing its ‘previously held first-page status’ on Amazon.” Defendant argued that Plaintiff failed to show that irreparable harm is likely to result in the absence of an injunction “because it has only supported its claim of irreparable harm with conclusory, uncorroborated statements.”

The court found Plaintiff provided only a “cursory” discussion of irreparable harm with “little to no analysis.” Plaintiff argued that two out-of-circuit cases supported its claim of irreparable harm, but the court distinguished the facts of those cases from the immediate dispute. The court said Plaintiff “offers almost no evidence to buttress its irreparable harm argument,” and that the evidence Plaintiff did provide amounted to allegations in its complaint and averments by an executive employed by Plaintiff, which the court described as “speculative and vague.” The court added that the complaint is not verified, allegations in a complaint are not evidence, and obtaining preliminary injunctive relief requires factual support beyond allegations in a complaint. The court further noted that the products at issue have been restored, and that Plaintiff should have been able to “provide specific information about the effect of the removal and substantiate the harm that would likely befall Plaintiff if the Takedown Notices were reasserted.”

The Case is No. 2:25-cv-00461-DJH.

Judge: Humetewa, D.

Attorneys: Clinton E. Duke (Dentons Durham Jones Pinegar PC) for Evolution Nutraceuticals Inc. Andrew Peter Demarco (Devlin Law Firm LLC) for Thermolife International LLC.

Companies: Evolution Nutraceuticals Inc.; Thermolife International LLC

Cases: Patent ArizonaNews