Amazentis SA v. Neurogan, Inc.: All Claims Dismissed in Urolithin A Patent Dispute
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Amazentis SA v. Neurogan, Inc. |
| Case Number | 3:25-cv-02515 (S.D. Cal.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California |
| Duration | Sep 2025 – Feb 2026 5 months |
| Outcome | Mutual Dismissal With Prejudice |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | Neurogan’s urolithin A nutraceutical and skincare product lines |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
A Swiss life science company and a pioneer in urolithin A research and commercialization, marketing Timeline® branded urolithin A supplements.
🛡️ Defendant
A San Diego, California-based health and wellness company, expanded into nutraceutical and skincare product lines, including urolithin A formulations.
Patents at Issue
This litigation centered on six U.S. patents covering urolithin A compositions, formulations, and applications in nutraceutical and skincare products, representing Amazentis’s core IP position.
- • US9872850B2 — Urolithin A compositions
- • US10485782B2 — Urolithin A formulations
- • US10442784B2 — Urolithin A applications
- • US11020373B2 — Urolithin A compositions
- • US10857126B2 — Urolithin A formulations
- • US12310943B2 — Urolithin A skincare applications
Developing a Urolithin A product?
Check if your nutraceutical or skincare formulation might infringe these or related patents before launch.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California dismissed **all of Amazentis’s infringement claims with prejudice** and **all of Neurogan’s counterclaims with prejudice**. Each party was ordered to bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees. No damages award, royalty determination, or injunctive relief was issued or disclosed in the public record.
Legal Significance
While this case did not produce a published opinion or precedential ruling, the mutual dismissal with prejudice, combined with the “each party bears its own costs” order, strongly indicates a confidential settlement. This outcome suggests the parties reached a negotiated resolution, likely involving licensing terms or product modifications, shortly after litigation commenced.
Amazentis’s assertion of six broadly scoped urolithin A patents demonstrates a layered IP enforcement approach. Neurogan’s counterclaims, likely including validity challenges, created bilateral exposure that often accelerates settlement discussions. The rapid 149-day resolution suggests efficient negotiation rather than prolonged motion practice.
Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in the rapidly growing urolithin A market. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View Amazentis’s full Urolithin A patent portfolio
- See which companies are most active in nutraceutical IP
- Understand urolithin A claim construction patterns
🔍 Check My Product’s Risk
Run a comprehensive FTO analysis for your own technology or product.
- Input your product description or technical features
- AI identifies potentially blocking patents
- Get actionable risk assessment report
High Risk Area
Urolithin A compositions & applications
6 Key Patents Asserted
By Amazentis SA
Negotiated Pathways
Settlement or licensing options
✅ Key Takeaways
Multi-patent assertion strategies in ingredient-based biotech cases create leverage but also bilateral validity risk.
Search related case law →Mutual dismissals with prejudice and own-cost orders are strong indicators of confidential settlement, common in specialized IP disputes.
Explore precedents →Frequently Asked Questions
Six U.S. patents were asserted: US9872850B2, US10485782B2, US10442784B2, US11020373B2, US10857126B2, and US12310943B2 — covering urolithin A compositions, formulations, and skincare applications.
The specific basis of termination was not publicly disclosed. The mutual dismissal with prejudice and own-cost order strongly indicate the parties reached a confidential settlement agreement within 149 days of filing.
It confirms Amazentis’s active enforcement posture in the urolithin A space and signals that competitors must address its six-patent portfolio through licensing, FTO clearance, or validity challenges before commercializing urolithin A products.
Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join 18,000+ IP professionals using PatSnap Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyse competitive landscapes with AI-powered precision.
References
- United States District Court for the Southern District of California — Case 3:25-cv-02515
- U.S. Patent and Trademark Office — Patent Resources
- Amazentis SA Official Website / Timeline®
- Neurogan, Inc. Official Website
- PatSnap — IP Intelligence Solutions for Law Firms
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. All case information is drawn from publicly available court records. For platform capabilities, visit PatSnap.