Axcess Global Sciences v. Platinium 500: Ketone Supplement Patent Dismissed With Prejudice
Axcess Global Sciences, LLC asserted US10292952B2 — covering exogenous ketone and ketogenic precursor supplement formulations — against Platinium 500 Inc. and Jessica Patino over products including Advanced Keto 1500, Keto GT, and Regal Keto. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss with prejudice after just 136 days, strongly suggesting a private settlement was reached.
Ketone supplement patent dispute ends fast via joint stipulated dismissal
On January 2, 2024, Axcess Global Sciences, LLC filed a patent infringement action in the Middle District of Florida against Platinium 500 Inc. and individual defendant Jessica Patino. The asserted patent, US10292952B2, covers exogenous ketone and ketogenic precursor supplement compositions. The accused products — Advanced Keto 1500, Keto GT, and Regal Keto — are dietary supplement lines marketed in the competitive ketogenic health space.
The case concluded on May 17, 2024, when the court granted a joint Stipulated Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice. The court construed the filing as a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal under applicable procedure, granting dismissal with prejudice while expressly declining to retain jurisdiction over the parties’ undisclosed settlement agreement. The dismissal with prejudice bars Axcess from reasserting the same patent claims against these defendants on the same accused products.
The 136-day resolution is notably swift for patent litigation, suggesting the parties likely reached a commercial settlement — potentially including a licensing arrangement or product discontinuation — shortly after filing. The court’s refusal to retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement means its specific terms remain private and unenforceable through the court. What drove the rapid resolution and whether any ongoing royalty or product modification obligations exist cannot be determined from the public record.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 136 days
136 days — resolved well below the typical 2–3 year district court patent trial timeline
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Joint stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
A dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for procedural purposes. Filed jointly by both parties, it signals mutual agreement — typically a settlement — rather than unilateral withdrawal. The court construed the filing as a Joint Stipulation under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), meaning no court order was technically required, though the court issued one. The ‘with prejudice’ designation is permanent: Axcess cannot refile these claims against these defendants.
Rule 41(a) joint stipulationAxcess’s claims permanently extinguished against these defendants
By agreeing to dismiss with prejudice, Axcess Global Sciences surrendered its ability to re-litigate patent infringement of US10292952B2 against Platinium 500 and Jessica Patino. In exchange, the parties almost certainly reached private terms — potentially licensing fees, product reformulation, or market exit commitments. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against other parties not bound by this stipulation.
Private settlement likelyPlatinium 500 and Patino escape further litigation exposure
Platinium 500 Inc. and Jessica Patino secured finality within 136 days of suit being filed. The dismissal with prejudice eliminates re-litigation risk from Axcess on these specific claims and products. However, the court declined to retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement — meaning neither party can return to this court to enforce undisclosed settlement terms if a dispute arises, consistent with the ruling in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life.
No court-supervised enforcementUS10292952B2 remains active — risk for other ketone supplement sellers
The settlement does not affect the validity or scope of US10292952B2. Other companies selling exogenous ketone or ketogenic precursor supplement products face continuing exposure if their formulations fall within the patent’s claims. The swift resolution here may signal that Axcess pursues aggressive early-stage enforcement; competitors in the ketogenic supplement sector should assess FTO exposure against this patent before launching similar products.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Axcess Global Sciences, LLC | Company | Dietary supplement IP licensor — holder of US10292952B2 covering exogenous ketone formulationsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Platinium 500 Inc. | Company | Supplement products company accused of infringing ketogenic supplement formulation patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Jessica Patino | Individual | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Brian Nelson Platt | Attorney | Counsel for Axcess Global Sciences, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Collin D. Hansen | Attorney | Counsel for Axcess Global Sciences, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Workman Nydegger | Law Firm | Representing Axcess Global Sciences, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Louis Raymond Gigliotti , Jr. | Attorney | Counsel for Platinium 500 Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Louis R. Gigliotti, Jr. PA | Law Firm | Representing Platinium 500 Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order reveals meaningful procedural nuance: although styled as a ‘Motion,’ the filing was re-characterised as a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal under Rule 41, reflecting the court’s preference for procedural accuracy. Critically, the court granted dismissal with prejudice but explicitly declined to retain jurisdiction over the settlement agreement — citing the principle that settlement terms not incorporated into a court order are not judicially enforceable. This limits the court’s future role to zero, making the settlement’s commercial terms entirely a private contractual matter between the parties.
US10292952B2 — exogenous ketone and ketogenic precursor supplement compositions
US10292952B2, filed under application number US15/454157, covers compositions and formulations in the exogenous ketone and ketogenic precursor supplement category. This technology addresses the formulation of bioavailable ketone bodies — such as beta-hydroxybutyrate salts or esters — intended to induce or support nutritional ketosis. The patent sits within the rapidly expanding functional nutrition and metabolic health sector, where IP protection over specific formulation approaches has become commercially significant.
For the ketogenic supplement market, this patent represents a meaningful enforcement asset. As demand for keto-branded dietary products surged, numerous brands entered the market with exogenous ketone products, creating significant infringement exposure for those who did not conduct pre-launch freedom-to-operate analysis. Axcess Global Sciences’ willingness to file suit within this sector — and the speed of resolution — suggests the patent is being actively leveraged as a licensing instrument, raising the stakes for any supplement company with overlapping product lines.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US10292952B2?
Any company formulating, importing, or distributing exogenous ketone supplements — including ketone salts, ketone esters, or metabolic precursor blends — should treat US10292952B2 as a live enforcement risk. This case demonstrates that Axcess Global Sciences will file suit against companies of all sizes, including naming individual principals. R&D teams preparing new keto supplement launches, reformulations, or white-label arrangements should prioritise FTO clearance before committing to production.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables rapid claim-by-claim mapping of US10292952B2 against your specific formulation parameters — identifying whether your product’s active ingredient composition, ratios, or delivery mechanisms fall within the patent’s independent or dependent claims. Eureka also surfaces related continuations, divisionals, or family members that may extend coverage beyond the asserted patent, giving your legal and commercial teams a complete risk picture before product launch.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10292952B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar ketogenic supplement patent infringement cases in US district courts
Cases asserting formulation patents against ketogenic and exogenous ketone supplement brands in US district courts, with comparable enforcement and dismissal patterns.
What this case signals for the ketogenic supplement IP landscape
A 136-day resolution via joint stipulation suggests Axcess Global Sciences is actively monetising US10292952B2 through litigation-backed licensing.
Swift dismissals often signal patent licensing enforcement campaigns
When a plaintiff files and resolves within months, it typically suggests a demand-letter-to-lawsuit-to-settlement pipeline rather than a full-scale trial strategy. Supplement brands and retailers offering exogenous ketone or ‘keto’ diet products should treat this filing pattern as an indicator that Axcess may assert this patent more broadly across the market.
Individual defendants elevate personal liability risk for supplement founders
The inclusion of Jessica Patino as an individual defendant alongside the corporate entity Platinium 500 Inc. is a meaningful enforcement tactic. Naming founders or executives personally in patent suits can accelerate settlement by creating direct personal financial exposure. IP counsel at smaller supplement brands should advise principals of this risk when evaluating FTO clearance prior to product launch.
Axcess v Platinium — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on May 17, 2024, via a joint stipulated motion filed by both parties. The Middle District of Florida construed the filing as a Joint Stipulation of Dismissal under Rule 41 and granted dismissal with prejudice, while declining to retain jurisdiction over the parties’ undisclosed settlement agreement.
Axcess Global Sciences asserted US10292952B2 (application number US15/454157), which covers exogenous ketone and ketogenic precursor supplement compositions. The accused products included Advanced Keto 1500, Keto GT, and Regal Keto — dietary supplement lines sold by Platinium 500 Inc.
The public record does not specify the basis for naming Jessica Patino individually alongside the corporate entity Platinium 500 Inc. In patent litigation, individual defendants are typically named where they are alleged to have personally directed or participated in infringing activity, or to increase settlement pressure by creating direct personal financial exposure for company principals.
No. A dismissal with prejudice only bars Axcess Global Sciences from reasserting these specific claims against Platinium 500 Inc. and Jessica Patino. The patent US10292952B2 remains in force and is fully enforceable against other parties whose products fall within its claims. Third-party supplement makers should not treat this dismissal as any indication of patent invalidity.
The Middle District of Florida declined jurisdiction over the settlement agreement because the agreement itself was not filed with or incorporated into the court’s order, consistent with the principle established in Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Insurance Co. Without explicit retention of jurisdiction, the settlement is a private contract enforceable only through a separate breach-of-contract action, not through enforcement proceedings in the patent court.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.