Follea International v. Cosmogene Skincare: Minoxidil Patent Case Dismissed Without Prejudice
Follea International Ltd. filed a patent infringement action in the Central District of California against Cosmogene Skincare Pvt. Ltd. and Regaliz Medicare Ltd. over US8691518B2, covering a minoxidil response test marketed directly to doctors and online. The case was dismissed without prejudice after 241 days — no proof of service was ever filed.
A Minoxidil IP Action That Never Got Off the Ground
On April 9, 2024, Follea International Ltd. filed a patent infringement complaint in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 8:24-cv-00769) against Cosmogene Skincare Pvt. Ltd. and Regaliz Medicare Ltd. The asserted patent, US8691518B2, covers a minoxidil response test — a diagnostic or predictive tool designed to guide prescribers on patient suitability for minoxidil-based hair-loss therapy. The accused product was described as a minoxidil response test sold to doctors directly and online.
The case never advanced past the pleadings stage. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause regarding dismissal for lack of prosecution on July 17, 2024 — less than 100 days after filing — and extended that order through November 1, 2024. Plaintiff filed no response and, critically, no proof of service was ever entered on the docket. On December 6, 2024, the Court dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2). A without-prejudice dismissal means no final judgment on the merits; Follea International retains the legal right to refile its claims.
The 241-day duration — ending in a non-merits dismissal — suggests the case stalled at the earliest procedural threshold. The failure to serve defendants is the most notable public-record fact: without service, the litigation cannot proceed regardless of the underlying patent’s strength. Whether Follea was unable to locate or serve the India-based defendants, or whether the parties reached an informal resolution not reflected in the docket, remains unknown from public filings. The without-prejudice posture keeps the patent’s enforceability entirely intact.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 241 days
241 days from filing to dismissal — below the median for contested patent cases in C.D. Cal., consistent with early-stage collapse
Dismissed without prejudice: what the ruling means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(2) dismissal for lack of prosecution explained
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(2), a court may dismiss an action on its own initiative when a plaintiff fails to prosecute the case. Here, the Court first issued a show-cause order — a procedural warning — and extended it for over three months. When Follea filed no response and no proof of service, dismissal followed automatically. This is a housekeeping dismissal, not a ruling on patent validity or infringement.
No merits adjudicatedWithout prejudice: the critical qualifier for Follea’s future options
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims. It is legally distinct from a dismissal ‘with prejudice,’ which would bar refiling. The public record here is explicit: the Court dismissed without prejudice. This means US8691518B2 remains fully enforceable and Follea International can pursue new infringement proceedings against the same or different defendants if it chooses to do so.
Refiling right preservedDefendants escape this action — but face ongoing exposure
Cosmogene Skincare and Regaliz Medicare were never formally served, meaning they incurred no adjudicated liability in this proceeding. However, a without-prejudice dismissal provides no legal immunity. The patent remains valid and enforceable, and Follea could initiate a new action — potentially in a different venue or with more robust service preparation — targeting the same accused products.
No immunity conferredMinoxidil response testing IP: unresolved competitive risk
The dismissal leaves the scope and enforceability of US8691518B2 unlitigated. Companies commercialising minoxidil response tests — particularly those selling direct-to-prescriber or direct-to-consumer — should note that this patent’s claims have not been invalidated or narrowed by any court ruling. The case’s collapse on procedural grounds, rather than on the merits, means competitive risk from this patent persists for the sector.
Patent still enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Follea International Ltd. | Company | Life sciences IP — holder of US8691518B2, a minoxidil response test patentSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Cosmogene Skincare Pvt. Ltd. | Company | Cosmogene Skincare Pvt. Ltd. (India) and Regaliz Medicare Ltd. — accused minoxidil test distributorsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Co-Defendant | Regaliz Medicare Ltd. | Company | Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Scott D Olson | Attorney | Counsel for Follea International Ltd.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The Court’s order is procedural rather than substantive: dismissal was triggered by Follea’s failure to file proof of service and its non-response to two consecutive show-cause orders. The phrase ‘without prejudice’ is legally operative — it forecloses any argument that this dismissal bars future litigation on the same patent. No claim construction, no validity ruling, and no damages analysis are embedded in this order. For defendants, the order closes this docket entry but confers no legal protection against a future action by Follea on US8691518B2.
US8691518B2 — Minoxidil Response Predictive Testing Technology
US8691518B2, filed under application number US13/245783, covers technology in the personalised medicine and dermatological diagnostics space — specifically a test designed to predict or assess a patient’s likely response to minoxidil, the widely-used topical hair-loss treatment. The patent’s ‘B2’ designation confirms it issued with a granted claim set that has been subject to at least one post-issuance correction or reexamination publication event. The underlying technology addresses a clinically meaningful gap: minoxidil produces variable efficacy across patients, and a validated response predictor would carry material value in both prescription and direct-to-consumer channels.
Strategically, this patent sits at the intersection of two high-growth sectors: personalised genomics/diagnostics and the $3B+ global hair-loss treatment market. The accused products were sold directly to physicians and via online channels — a distribution model that is increasingly the primary route to market for pharmacogenomic testing products. Any entity commercialising minoxidil response tests in the U.S., whether as a standalone product or bundled with a treatment protocol, faces potential exposure under this patent’s claims. The case’s procedural collapse does not diminish that commercial risk.
Should your team run an FTO against US8691518B2?
If your company develops, distributes, or markets any form of minoxidil efficacy prediction test — including genetic, pharmacogenomic, or phenotypic assessments — sold to clinicians or consumers in the U.S., US8691518B2 is a patent you cannot ignore. Follea’s willingness to litigate, combined with a without-prejudice dismissal that preserves all future enforcement rights, signals ongoing proprietorial intent. The fact that claims have never been construed means you cannot rely on prior litigation outcomes to define the patent’s scope.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map your product’s technical features against the asserted claims of US8691518B2, flag prosecution history estoppel that may limit claim scope, and identify prior art that could support an IPR petition if infringement exposure is confirmed. For R&D teams building next-generation hair-loss diagnostics, running this analysis before commercial launch — rather than after receiving a cease-and-desist — is the strategically sound approach.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US8691518B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Patent Infringement Cases in Personalised Diagnostics & Hair-Loss Treatment IP
Cases involving diagnostic and pharmacogenomic test patents in the Central District of California and related federal courts — filtered by technology area and dismissal posture.
What this case signals for the minoxidil diagnostic IP landscape
A without-prejudice dismissal keeps enforcement options open. Companies in the minoxidil testing space should not treat this outcome as a patent clearance event.
Lack of service filing signals potential cross-border enforcement difficulty
Both defendants appear to be India-based entities. The failure to file proof of service in a U.S. district court action against foreign defendants is consistent with documented challenges in effecting international service under the Hague Convention. IP teams monitoring this patent should consider that a re-filed action may target domestic distributors rather than the overseas manufacturers.
US8691518B2 has not been tested on validity — threat remains live
Because the case was dismissed before any substantive motion practice, the patent’s claims have never been construed or challenged in court. No IPR petition appears to have been filed. Competitors in the personalised hair-loss diagnostics space operating under the assumption that this patent is weak or unenforceable are exposed — that assumption has no judicial foundation.
Follea v Cosmogene — key questions answered
The case was dismissed without prejudice on December 6, 2024, after 241 days. The Central District of California dismissed the action under FRCP 41(a)(2) for lack of prosecution — specifically because Follea International filed no proof of service and did not respond to two show-cause orders. No merits ruling was issued.
Follea International asserted US8691518B2, a patent covering a minoxidil response test — a diagnostic or predictive tool used to determine patient suitability for minoxidil hair-loss treatment. The accused product was described as a minoxidil response test sold directly to doctors and online.
No. A dismissal without prejudice has no effect on patent validity. The patent was never subjected to claim construction, validity challenge, or infringement analysis in this proceeding. US8691518B2 remains a granted, enforceable U.S. patent and Follea International retains the right to assert it in future proceedings.
Yes. A without-prejudice dismissal expressly preserves the plaintiff’s right to refile the same claims. Follea International can bring a new action against the same defendants or other parties accused of infringing US8691518B2, subject to any applicable statutes of limitations on the specific acts of infringement alleged.
The public record indicates that Follea International never filed proof of service on the defendants — Cosmogene Skincare Pvt. Ltd. and Regaliz Medicare Ltd., both apparently India-based entities. The Court issued an Order to Show Cause in July 2024 and extended it through November 2024. When no response was filed, the Court dismissed under FRCP 41(a)(2). The underlying reason — whether a service difficulty, informal settlement, or strategic withdrawal — is not reflected in the public docket.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.