Metronome LLC v. Bioserene Inc.: Cannabis Topical Patent Suit Dismissed Without Prejudice
Metronome LLC filed a patent infringement claim against Bioserene Inc. in Florida’s Southern District, asserting US10653736B2 covering cannabis-derived botanical topical treatments. The case lasted just 26 days before Metronome filed a voluntary dismissal without prejudice — leaving the door open for future enforcement action.
A 26-Day Cannabis Patent Filing That Left Every Question Open
On July 16, 2025, Metronome LLC filed a patent infringement action against Bioserene Inc. in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida before Judge Aileen M. Cannon. The suit centred on US10653736B2 — a patent covering topical treatments incorporating cannabis sp. derived botanical drug products. Metronome was represented by Beusse Sanks PLLC and Rabicoff Law LLC, counsel associated with recurring patent enforcement activity.
Before Bioserene filed any answer or motion for summary judgment, Metronome filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal Without Prejudice on August 8, 2025. Judge Cannon formally closed the case three days later on August 11, citing Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which permits a plaintiff to dismiss as of right at that early procedural stage. The dismissal is without prejudice, meaning Metronome retains the ability to reassert the same claims against Bioserene or other defendants in a future action.
The 26-day lifespan of the case is notably short and provides little public record from which to infer the underlying commercial or legal dynamic. The voluntary nature of the dismissal, filed before any defence was entered, is consistent with several possibilities: a pre-litigation settlement, a licensing agreement reached after filing, or a strategic reassessment of claim scope. No defendant counsel of record, no cost award, and no court-ordered terms were recorded, leaving the resolution effectively opaque to outside observers.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 26 days
26 days from filing to dismissal — well below the district median for patent cases
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41 without prejudice means for both sides
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) gives plaintiffs a cost-free exit before any answer
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss a case as of right — without court permission and without prejudice — provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or motion for summary judgment. No judicial discretion is involved; the dismissal is automatic upon filing. This is the earliest and cleanest procedural exit available in U.S. federal civil litigation.
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissalWithout prejudice: Metronome can refile — and the record does not say why it didn’t
A dismissal without prejudice does not resolve the underlying dispute on the merits. Metronome retains the right to bring the same infringement claims again against Bioserene or any other party. A dismissal with prejudice, by contrast, would bar refiling. The public docket is silent on whether a licensing agreement, settlement payment, or purely strategic reason drove this withdrawal — those terms, if any, are not part of the court record.
Refiling rights preservedBioserene escapes this action — but faces residual exposure if Metronome refiles
Bioserene filed no answer and incurred no recorded legal costs, suggesting the case resolved or was withdrawn before meaningful defence expenditure. However, the without-prejudice nature of the dismissal means Bioserene does not hold a final judgment in its favour. If no licensing agreement was reached, future infringement actions remain possible. The absence of defendant counsel on the docket suggests the matter may have been resolved through direct commercial negotiation.
No merits adjudicationCannabis topical patent enforcement: early dismissals can signal licensing activity
In patent assertion contexts, a very short case lifecycle followed by voluntary dismissal without prejudice is often consistent with a quick licensing resolution. For companies commercialising cannabis-derived topical formulations, US10653736B2 remains an active, enforceable patent. Firms in this product category should treat this case as a signal that the patent holder is actively monitoring the market and prepared to file suit — even if individual actions resolve quickly.
Ongoing enforcement riskFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Metronome, LLC | Company | Cannabis topical IP licensor — holder of US10653736B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Bioserene, Inc. | Company | Bioserene Inc. — manufacturer or distributor of cannabis-derived topical productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Metronome, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Terry Marcus Sanks | Attorney | Counsel for Metronome, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Beusse Sanks PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Metronome, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Metronome, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Aileen M. Cannon | Judge | Florida Southern District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s order closely tracks the mandatory language of Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): because Bioserene had not served an answer or motion for summary judgment, the dismissal operated automatically upon Metronome’s filing. Judge Cannon’s order adds no independent judicial findings on infringement, validity, or claim construction. The effective date is August 8, 2025 — the filing date of the notice — not August 11, when the order issued. For both parties, this verdict is purely procedural: it resolves nothing on the merits and preserves the status quo for any future enforcement.
US10653736B2 — Cannabis-Derived Botanical Drug Topical Treatment
US10653736B2 (application number US16/257389) protects topical treatments incorporating cannabis sp. derived botanical drug products. The patent sits at the intersection of botanical drug regulation and cannabis therapeutics — a space that gained significant regulatory attention following FDA’s framework for botanical drug substances. The application’s filing context places it within an early phase of commercial cannabis IP consolidation, when foundational formulation patents were being secured ahead of broader market development.
For the cannabis topical sector, US10653736B2 represents a potential blocking patent for competitors developing CBD or cannabis-derived creams, balms, or transdermal products. Its assertion against Bioserene — a company in this product space — suggests the patent holder views the claims as commercially relevant and enforceable against market participants. Given the rapid growth of cannabis topical product lines among both pharmaceutical and consumer wellness companies, this patent warrants close monitoring by any firm active in botanical drug formulation.
Should your cannabis topical product line be cleared against US10653736B2?
Any company formulating, manufacturing, or distributing topical products incorporating cannabis-derived botanical drug substances in the United States should assess their exposure to US10653736B2. This case demonstrates that the patent holder is prepared to litigate — and that rapid out-of-court resolution, while possible, is not guaranteed. R&D and product teams commercialising CBD balms, cannabis transdermal patches, or botanical topical therapeutics should treat this patent as a live FTO consideration.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can analyse the claim language of US10653736B2 against your product specifications, flag prior art that may support a validity challenge, and surface related botanical drug patents that could affect your freedom to operate. Eureka’s litigation monitoring feature will also alert you if this patent is asserted again — giving you advance notice before a filing lands.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10653736B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Cannabis and Botanical Drug Patent Cases in U.S. District Courts
Explore comparable patent infringement actions involving cannabis-derived and botanical drug formulation patents litigated in U.S. federal district courts.
What this case signals for the cannabis topical IP landscape
A 26-day lifecycle and no defence filing suggests the dispute may have resolved commercially — but the patent stays enforceable.
Without-prejudice dismissals are not the end: monitor for refiling
Metronome retains full rights to refile against Bioserene or assert US10653736B2 against new defendants. Companies in the cannabis topical sector should actively monitor this patent’s litigation history. A pattern of rapid-resolution filings by the same plaintiff and law firm is a common indicator of systematic licensing enforcement.
Pre-answer resolution avoids costs but creates no legal certainty for the defendant
Bioserene holds no invalidity finding, no non-infringement ruling, and no covenant-not-to-sue on record. If the parties reached a private agreement, its terms are undisclosed. Any competitor in the cannabis topical space should independently assess their own exposure to US10653736B2 rather than inferring protection from this outcome.
Metronome v Bioserene — key questions answered
It means Metronome chose to withdraw its patent infringement claim before Bioserene filed any answer. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), this type of dismissal is automatic and requires no court approval at that stage. Critically, ‘without prejudice’ means Metronome can refile the same claims against Bioserene or other defendants in the future. No merits ruling was made on US10653736B2.
US10653736B2 is a U.S. patent covering topical treatments incorporating cannabis sp. derived botanical drug products. It was filed under application number US16/257389. The patent addresses formulation of cannabis-derived compounds for topical therapeutic use, a commercially significant area given the growth of CBD and botanical drug product markets in the United States.
The public record does not disclose a reason. The 26-day lifecycle and pre-answer dismissal are consistent with several scenarios: a private licensing agreement, a settlement payment, or a strategic decision to refile. No defendant counsel appeared on the docket, which may suggest direct commercial resolution rather than adversarial litigation. The court order contains no findings that would clarify the underlying rationale.
Metronome LLC was represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC and Terry Marcus Sanks of Beusse Sanks PLLC. Both firms have been associated with patent enforcement litigation in U.S. federal courts. No defendant counsel of record appeared in this case before its dismissal.
No. A voluntary dismissal without prejudice does not constitute a judgment in Bioserene’s favour and does not bar Metronome from reasserting the same patent claims. Bioserene holds no invalidity ruling, no non-infringement finding, and no recorded covenant-not-to-sue. Unless a private licensing or settlement agreement was reached — which is not reflected in the public record — Bioserene and similarly situated companies remain exposed to future enforcement of US10653736B2.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.