## Facts

- Nutrition Now sold PB8, a probiotic supplement, using long-running label and advertising claims that PB8 had “fourteen billion” bacteria per capsule, “eight” bacteria types, and no refrigeration requirement.
- Jarrow sold a competing probiotic supplement and, by 1993, believed PB8’s claims were false.
- In 1993, Jarrow’s president confronted Nutrition Now’s president and accused PB8’s claims of being false and misleading.
- Jarrow then filed a trade-association grievance asserting the claims were “false, unfair, misleading, and illegal,” and sent letters to customers calling PB8 “dead” and “worthless.”
- Jarrow also sent letters to Nutrition Now threatening to end PB8’s “false claims,” warning it would conduct further testing and threatening litigation.
- Nutrition Now continued using the same PB8 marketing claims and invested heavily in national advertising built around those claims.
- Jarrow did not sue until August 2000, asserting false advertising under Lanham Act § 43(a) and related state-law claims, and seeking injunctive relief and other remedies.

## Issues

1. Whether laches can bar a Lanham Act § 43(a) false-advertising claim filed after expiration of the most analogous state statute of limitations.
2. What state limitations period is the proper analog for a California-based Lanham Act false-advertising claim, and whether filing outside that period creates a presumption of laches.
3. Whether Jarrow’s delay was unreasonable and whether Nutrition Now suffered economic or evidentiary prejudice from the delay.
4. Whether public-interest concerns about truthful advertising prevent laches from barring injunctive relief in a suit between competitors.
5. Whether alleged false advertising by Nutrition Now constituted unclean hands that would defeat its laches defense.
6. Whether the district court abused its discretion by denying additional discovery before granting summary judgment.

## Decision

- The Ninth Circuit affirmed summary judgment for Nutrition Now.
- The court held the three-year California fraud limitations period was the most analogous statute for the Lanham Act false-advertising claim.
- Because Jarrow sued about seven years after it knew of the alleged falsity, the claim was presumptively barred by laches, and Jarrow did not rebut that presumption.
- The court found Jarrow’s delay unreasonable and found prejudice to Nutrition Now, including reliance on the challenged claims as central to PB8’s brand and evidentiary deterioration over time.
- The court rejected arguments that public interest in truthful advertising, or Nutrition Now’s alleged misconduct, barred application of laches in this competitor dispute.
- The court upheld denial of further discovery, concluding additional discovery was unlikely to change the laches analysis.

## Legal Principles

- When the Lanham Act supplies no limitations period, courts use the most analogous state statute of limitations to guide laches analysis.
- Filing a Lanham Act claim after the analogous state limitations period creates a strong presumption that laches applies; the plaintiff bears the burden to show reasonable delay or lack of prejudice.
- Laches requires (1) unreasonable delay measured from when the plaintiff knew or should have known of the claim and (2) prejudice to the defendant, which may be economic reliance or evidentiary harm.
- In competitor false-advertising suits, general consumer-interest concerns do not automatically override laches absent a showing of serious public health or safety risk.
- Unclean hands defeats equitable defenses only when the defendant’s misconduct is sufficiently egregious and closely related to the equitable issue; alleged false advertising alone does not automatically preclude laches.
- Denial of additional discovery in the summary-judgment context is reviewed for abuse of discretion; where core laches facts are established and further discovery would not affect the result, denial is permissible.

## Conclusion

The Ninth Circuit held that Jarrow’s years-long delay in suing over PB8’s advertising—despite early knowledge and threats of litigation—triggered and failed to overcome a presumption of laches based on the analogous California fraud limitations period, and that Nutrition Now was prejudiced by the delay; summary judgment for Nutrition Now was therefore affirmed on both federal and related state claims.


Jarrow Formulas, Inc. v. Nutrition Now, Inc., 304 F.3d 829 (9th Cir. 2002)