Bausch & Lomb vs. SBH Holdings: Eye Supplement Patent Dispute Ends in Dismissal
What would you like to do next?
Choose your path based on your current needs:
📋 Case Summary
| Case Name | Bausch & Lomb, Inc. and PF Consumer Healthcare 1 LLC v. SBH Holdings, LLC |
| Case Number | 1:20-cv-01463 (D. Del.) |
| Court | U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware |
| Duration | Oct 2020 – Apr 2025 4 years 5 months (1,625 days) |
| Outcome | Dismissed with Prejudice – No Damages |
| Patents at Issue | |
| Accused Products | MacularProtect Complete® AREDS 2, MacularProtect® AREDS 2 |
Case Overview
The Parties
⚖️ Plaintiff
Globally recognized ophthalmic products company with an extensive portfolio including eye health supplements. Joined by co-plaintiff **PF Consumer Healthcare 1 LLC**.
🛡️ Defendant
Marketed competing AREDS-category products under the MacularProtect Complete® AREDS 2 and MacularProtect® AREDS 2 brand names.
The Patents at Issue
This patent infringement action centered on two foundational patents covering AREDS (Age-Related Eye Disease Study) nutritional supplement formulations:
- • U.S. Patent No. 8,603,522 B2 — covering formulations and compositions related to AREDS nutritional supplement technology
- • U.S. Patent No. 6,660,297 B2 — an earlier-generation patent covering complementary AREDS formula subject matter
Developing a new nutraceutical product?
Check if your eye health supplement formulation might infringe these or related patents.
The Verdict & Legal Analysis
Outcome
The case resolved through a **stipulated dismissal with prejudice**, filed jointly by all parties. The operative language is precise and strategically significant: *”All claims, affirmative defenses, and counterclaims between the parties in this action are hereby dismissed with prejudice; and each party is to bear its own costs and attorney fees.”* **No damages were awarded.** No injunctive relief was granted. The “with prejudice” designation means neither party may re-litigate these specific claims — the resolution is final and binding.
Legal Significance
This case highlights a recurring dynamic in **nutraceutical and dietary supplement patent litigation**: the boundary between proprietary formula claims and broadly known nutritional science creates persistent claim construction tension. AREDS formulations, rooted in NIH-sponsored clinical research, occupy an unusual IP landscape where scientific consensus and patent exclusivity interact.
Filing a nutraceutical patent?
Learn from this case. Use AI to draft stronger claims that can withstand litigation.
Power Your Patent Strategy with Eureka IP
From novelty searches to patent drafting, Eureka’s AI-powered tools help you navigate the patent landscape with confidence.
⚠️ Freedom to Operate (FTO) Analysis
This case highlights critical IP risks in the nutraceutical and dietary supplement space. Choose your next step:
📋 Understand This Case’s Impact
Learn about the specific risks and implications from this litigation.
- View active patents in the eye health supplement space
- See which companies are most active in nutraceutical patents
- Understand claim construction patterns in formulation patents
🔍 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
AREDS/AREDS 2 formulations
Two Foundational Patents
US8603522B2 & US6660297B2
FTO Analysis is Critical
For new eye health products
✅ Key Takeaways
For Patent Attorneys & Litigators
Stipulated dismissals with prejudice in multi-year cases often reflect negotiated commercial resolutions rather than clear liability determinations.
Search related case law →Delaware remains a preferred venue for supplement and pharmaceutical-adjacent patent enforcement.
Explore precedents →Asymmetric litigation resources between parties frequently shape settlement timing and terms.
Analyze litigation dynamics →Both asserted patents remain active IP assets post-dismissal — monitor for future assertion activity.
Track patent legal status →For IP Professionals
Maintain active patent landscape monitoring in AREDS and macular health supplement categories.
Explore competitive landscape →Evaluate related patent family members beyond the two asserted patents (US8603522B2, US6660297B2) for portfolio exposure.
Conduct patent family analysis →Dismissal with each party bearing its own costs warrants review of litigation cost-benefit models for long-duration cases.
Assess litigation strategy →For R&D Teams
Commission FTO analysis before entering any AREDS-adjacent product category.
Start FTO analysis for my product →Document design-around rationale during formulation development to support invalidity or non-infringement positions if enforcement occurs.
Try AI patent drafting →Ready to Strengthen Your Patent Strategy?
Join thousands of IP professionals using Eureka to conduct prior art searches, draft patents, and analyze competitive landscapes.
Case Documents: Review the official docket at PACER under Case No. 1:20-cv-01463 (D. Del.). Patent records are accessible via the USPTO Patent Center.