Amazentis v. CogniSHIELD: Dismissed With Prejudice in 109 Days
Amazentis SA brought a seven-count patent infringement action against CogniSHIELD Global LLC in Massachusetts over its MITOPURE® and TIMELINE® longevity supplement portfolios, asserting three US patents. The parties reached a stipulated resolution, with the amended complaint and all counts dismissed with prejudice after just 109 days — before CogniSHIELD ever filed an answer.
MITOPURE® Patent Battle Ends Before CogniSHIELD Filed Any Answer
On February 27, 2026, Amazentis SA — together with Timeline Longevity, Inc. — filed suit in the U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts (Judge Richard G. Stearns) against CogniSHIELD Global LLC and Acta Pharmaceuticals, Inc., asserting infringement of three US patents: US11234960B2, US10485782B2, and US10857126B2. The asserted patents relate to the MITOPURE® and TIMELINE® longevity supplement product lines. The amended complaint ran to seven counts (Counts I–VII) covering a range of infringement theories.
The recorded basis of termination is 'Case Dismissed.' The docket order — a joint stipulation dated June 15, 2026 — states that the amended complaint, including all counts asserted or that could have been asserted by any party, is dismissed with prejudice. The court retained personal and subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the stipulation or the parties' settlement agreement. Each party agreed to bear its own costs. The specific terms of any underlying settlement agreement are not disclosed in the available record.
The case closed 109 days after filing, before CogniSHIELD had filed an answer to either the original or amended complaint — the court had twice extended the deadline for CogniSHIELD's response. The speed of resolution, the pre-answer posture, and the court's explicit retention of jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement are all consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution, though the specific terms are not disclosed in the available public record.
See Complete Case & Patent Analysis →Filing to Case Dismissed in 109 days
Case resolved in under 4 months — well below the median district court patent case duration.
US11234960B2, US10485782B2 & US10857126B2 — MITOPURE® and TIMELINE® Longevity Technology
Any company developing or commercialising urolithin A supplements, mitophagy-activating formulations, or products in the broader MITOPURE®/TIMELINE® technology space should treat these three patents as active enforcement risk. Amazentis has demonstrated willingness to litigate in federal court, and the dismissal with prejudice in this case does not affect the patents' enforceability against any other party. R&D teams working on mitochondrial health ingredients or longevity supplement formulations should commission an FTO review before product launch or significant investment.
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulation of dismissal records that all counts of the amended complaint — including claims that could have been asserted — are dismissed with prejudice, with the court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the parties' arrangement. The pre-answer posture and the express jurisdiction-retention clause are notable procedural features; they indicate the matter ended by agreement rather than default or merits adjudication. The specific terms of any underlying arrangement are not disclosed in the available record.
Dismissed with prejudice: what the stipulated resolution means for both parties
Stipulated dismissal with prejudice — all seven counts extinguished
The parties filed a joint stipulation of dismissal under which Counts I through VII of the amended complaint — and any claim that could have been asserted — were dismissed with prejudice. A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits: Amazentis cannot re-file the same claims against CogniSHIELD on these patents. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the stipulation or any underlying settlement agreement.
Dismissed with prejudiceAmazentis cannot re-assert these claims — but retains its patents
The with-prejudice dismissal bars Amazentis and Timeline Longevity from re-litigating the same infringement claims against CogniSHIELD and Acta Pharmaceuticals on US11234960B2, US10485782B2, and US10857126B2. The underlying patents themselves remain in force and enforceable against third parties. The specific terms of any commercial arrangement between the parties are not disclosed in the available record.
Patents remain enforceable vs. third partiesCogniSHIELD exits the litigation without an answer on record
CogniSHIELD and Acta Pharmaceuticals resolved the case before filing any answer to either version of the complaint. The dismissal with prejudice means these specific claims cannot be re-filed against them. The court's explicit retention of jurisdiction to enforce any settlement agreement signals ongoing obligations between the parties, though the content of those obligations is not publicly disclosed.
No merits adjudication; no answer filedAmazentis patent portfolio signals active enforcement in the longevity supplement sector
The rapid resolution — 109 days, before any substantive pleading from the defendant — is consistent with a market enforcement posture aimed at clearing the field rather than litigating to judgment. Companies commercialising mitochondrial health or urolithin-based supplement products in the US should treat the three asserted patents as active enforcement assets. The court's retained jurisdiction adds a compliance dimension to any arrangement reached between these parties.
Active enforcement signal for the sectorFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Amazentis SA | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | CogniSHIELD Global LLC | Company | /Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron Joseph Loving | Attorney | Counsel for Amazentis SASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jeffrey I.D. Lewis | Attorney | Counsel for Amazentis SASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Mital B. Patel | Attorney | Counsel for Amazentis SASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Rachel Leigh Kerner | Attorney | Counsel for Amazentis SASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Foley Hoag LLP | Law Firm | Representing Amazentis SASearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Bryana T. McGillycuddy | Attorney | Counsel for CogniSHIELD Global LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Eric J. Marandett | Attorney | Counsel for CogniSHIELD Global LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Madison Garrett | Attorney | Counsel for CogniSHIELD Global LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Choate Hall & Stewart, LLP | Law Firm | Representing CogniSHIELD Global LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Richard G. Stearns | Judge | Massachusetts District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
R&D signals in the mitochondrial health and longevity supplement space
Forward-looking patent and innovation intelligence derived from Amazentis's portfolio and the MITOPURE®/TIMELINE® technology landscape — for R&D and IP strategy teams.
Amazentis's multi-patent longevity supplement filing strategy
Amazentis asserted three distinct US patents across two application lineages (15/218790 and 15/218663 alongside 14/644912), suggesting a layered portfolio strategy covering compositions, formulations, and methods of use for MITOPURE® and TIMELINE®. Tracking continuation and divisional filings from these families can reveal where Amazentis is extending coverage in the urolithin and mitochondrial health space.
Active multi-lineage portfolioPatent filing trends in urolithin A and mitophagy activation
Urolithin A and mitophagy-activating supplement compositions have attracted increasing patent filings from both biotech startups and established nutraceutical companies. Mapping the competitive filing activity around the MITOPURE® technology space can identify white-space opportunities and potential blocking positions for teams developing next-generation longevity ingredients.
Growing filing activityCogniSHIELD and Acta Pharmaceuticals: IP position in longevity supplements
CogniSHIELD Global LLC and Acta Pharmaceuticals, Inc. resolved the litigation before filing any substantive pleading. Reviewing their patent filings — if any — in the mitochondrial health and longevity supplement category can clarify whether they hold independent IP or operate primarily as product marketers in a space dominated by Amazentis's portfolio.
Challenger IP landscapeAdjacent innovation opportunities near the MITOPURE® patent estate
The three Amazentis patents cover specific compositions and methods within the urolithin and mitochondrial health space. Identifying adjacent formulation approaches — delivery systems, combination ingredients, or novel dosing methods not covered by US11234960B2, US10485782B2, or US10857126B2 — may reveal defensible white-space for R&D teams seeking to compete in the longevity supplement category without direct claim overlap.
Formulation white spaceSimilar patent infringement cases in the longevity supplement and nutraceutical space
Explore related patent infringement actions in the Massachusetts District Court and broader US courts involving supplement formulation, nutraceutical composition, and longevity biotech patents.
What this case signals for the longevity supplement IP landscape
A pre-answer resolution in 109 days points to swift patent enforcement in a fast-moving biotech supplement category.
Three-patent assertion signals a portfolio enforcement strategy
Asserting three patents across a seven-count complaint — covering MITOPURE® and TIMELINE® technology — suggests Amazentis is deploying overlapping patent coverage rather than relying on a single claim. Competitors in the urolithin and mitochondrial health supplement space should audit their product formulations against all three asserted patents, not just the lead asset.
Pre-answer resolution elevates settlement leverage in future actions
The case closed before CogniSHIELD filed any answer, even after two court-granted deadline extensions. This pattern typically signals that defendants face a high-cost litigation risk relative to early resolution. Companies receiving cease-and-desist letters from Amazentis regarding MITOPURE® or TIMELINE® IP should factor this speed-to-resolution precedent into their response calculus.
Amazentis v CogniSHIELD — key questions answered
Amazentis SA asserted three US patents: US11234960B2 (App. No. 14/644912), US10485782B2 (App. No. 15/218790), and US10857126B2 (App. No. 15/218663), all relating to the MITOPURE® and TIMELINE® longevity supplement product lines. The seven-count amended complaint was filed in the District of Massachusetts.
The case was resolved by a joint stipulation of dismissal. All counts of the amended complaint (Counts I–VII) were dismissed with prejudice, meaning Amazentis and Timeline Longevity cannot re-file the same claims against CogniSHIELD and Acta Pharmaceuticals. The underlying patents remain in force and enforceable against third parties. The specific terms of any settlement are not disclosed in the available record.
No. The stipulation of dismissal records that CogniSHIELD did not answer either the original complaint or the amended complaint. The court granted two extensions of CogniSHIELD's deadline to respond before the parties filed their joint stipulation. The case closed on June 16, 2026, without any answer on the docket.
No. The dismissal with prejudice binds only the parties to this action — Amazentis/Timeline Longevity and CogniSHIELD/Acta Pharmaceuticals. The three asserted patents were not invalidated or adjudicated on their merits. They remain in force and can be asserted against any other party engaged in potentially infringing activity.
The stipulation expressly states that the District Court for the District of Massachusetts retains personal and subject matter jurisdiction to enforce the stipulation of dismissal or the parties' settlement agreement. This retention of jurisdiction is notable and suggests structured post-resolution obligations exist between the parties, though the specific terms of any such agreement are not disclosed in the available public record.
This page is compiled from public court dockets and third-party patent and litigation data via PatSnap Eureka, and is provided for general informational purposes only. The information shown — including party names, patent and application numbers, dates, case status, outcomes, and any analysis — may be incomplete, may not reflect the most recent filings or legal status, and may contain errors or omissions. Verify all details against official court records (for example, PACER) and the relevant patent office before relying on them.
Nothing on this page constitutes legal advice or a legal opinion on the validity, infringement, enforceability, or scope of any patent or case, and no attorney‑client relationship is created by its use. Any description of an outcome (such as a dismissal, settlement, or consent judgment) is a general summary, not a legal determination. All patents, trademarks, and company or law‑firm names are the property of their respective owners. PatSnap makes no warranty as to the accuracy or completeness of this content and disclaims, to the fullest extent permitted by law, all liability for reliance on it. For advice on a specific matter, consult qualified legal counsel.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.