Metronome LLC v. BioSpectrum Hemp: Cannabis Topical Patent Case Settles in 190 Days
Metronome LLC filed a patent infringement action against BioSpectrum Hemp in the Western District of Wisconsin, asserting US10653736B2 covering cannabis-derived topical drug products. The parties reached a settlement within 190 days, and the court dismissed the case without prejudice — leaving the door open for formal dismissal with prejudice once the settlement is fully executed.
Cannabis topical IP dispute resolves quietly in Western Wisconsin
On February 26, 2025, Metronome LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against BioSpectrum Hemp in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Case No. 3:25-cv-00144). The asserted patent, US10653736B2, covers topical treatment formulations incorporating cannabis sp. derived botanical drug products — a commercially active and increasingly contested category as hemp and CBD product markets have expanded. BioSpectrum Hemp is a manufacturer and supplier operating in this space.
Before the case reached any substantive merits ruling, the parties jointly filed a notice indicating they had reached a settlement and requested a stay of all pending deadlines. The court declined the stay but instead dismissed the case without prejudice on September 4, 2025 — 190 days after filing. The dismissal without prejudice preserves either party’s right to reopen the case for good cause, and the court’s order expressly invites a subsequent motion to dismiss with prejudice once the settlement agreement is fully executed.
The swift resolution — under seven months and without any substantive court rulings — is consistent with a negotiated licence or commercial arrangement rather than a contested defence. The public record does not disclose financial terms, licensing structures, or any admission of infringement or validity. The pending conversion to a with-prejudice dismissal, once settlement is finalised, will signal the definitive end of this dispute.
Filing to Dismissed without Prejudice in 190 days
190-day resolution — faster than the U.S. district court median for patent cases
Dismissed without prejudice: what the court’s order means for both parties
Without prejudice dismissal keeps the case technically reopenable
A dismissal without prejudice does not adjudicate the merits. The court retains jurisdiction to reopen the case if either party demonstrates good cause — for example, if the settlement agreement is breached or fails to execute. The court’s order specifically contemplates a follow-on motion to dismiss with prejudice once settlement terms are finalised, which is the conventional pathway when parties settle mid-litigation.
No merits adjudicationPublic record is silent on whether prejudice attaches
A dismissal with prejudice bars refiling the same claim permanently; a dismissal without prejudice does not. Here, the court dismissed without prejudice as an interim measure while the settlement is being finalised. The public record does not confirm whether the eventual disposition will convert to with prejudice. Practitioners should note that until a with-prejudice order is entered, the litigation risk is not fully extinguished for BioSpectrum Hemp.
Watch for follow-on motionMetronome preserves enforcement leverage pending settlement execution
By obtaining a dismissal without prejudice rather than a voluntary dismissal with prejudice, Metronome LLC retains theoretical re-filing rights if the settlement collapses. This is standard practice for patent plaintiffs during settlement finalisation. The patent US10653736B2 remains valid and enforceable against third parties — the dismissal affects only this specific defendant.
Patent remains enforceableCannabis topical patent holders are actively enforcing in U.S. courts
This case signals that US10653736B2 is being actively asserted against commercial hemp and CBD topical product manufacturers. Companies operating in the cannabis-derived topical segment — including cosmetic, wellness, and pharmaceutical applicators — should treat this patent as a live enforcement risk. A pre-product-launch FTO analysis against Metronome’s portfolio is warranted given the demonstrated willingness to litigate.
FTO review advisedFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Metronome LLC | Company | Cannabis IP licensing entity — holder of US10653736B2 covering topical botanical treatmentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | BioSpectrum Hemp | Individual | Hemp-derived product manufacturer and supplier in the U.S. topical wellness marketSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Isaac Rabicoff | Attorney | Counsel for Metronome LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Metronome LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Monica Ann Mark | Attorney | Counsel for BioSpectrum HempSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Reinhart, Boerner & Van Deuren SC | Law Firm | Representing BioSpectrum HempSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Wisconsin Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The court’s dismissal order reflects a textbook mid-litigation settlement procedure: the parties filed a joint settlement notice, and rather than granting a stay, the court issued a without-prejudice dismissal while expressly preserving the parties’ option to seek a with-prejudice dismissal post-execution. This phrasing indicates no finding on infringement, validity, or damages — the merits of US10653736B2’s claims against BioSpectrum Hemp’s products were never tested. The order’s structure places the procedural burden on the parties to close the loop formally.
US10653736B2 — Cannabis-derived botanical topical treatment formulations
US10653736B2 (application no. US16/257389) protects topical treatment formulations incorporating cannabis species-derived botanical drug products. The patent sits at the intersection of pharmaceutical formulation and cannabis extraction technology — a domain that has seen significant commercial expansion following the 2018 U.S. Farm Bill’s legalisation of hemp-derived compounds. The patent’s claims likely address specific formulation compositions or delivery mechanisms that distinguish it from generic CBD or hemp extract applications.
For the cannabis topical sector — spanning cosmetic skincare, pain relief, and therapeutic dermatological products — US10653736B2 represents a potential blocking position if its claims cover commonly used formulation approaches. Patent holders in this space have begun enforcing assets more aggressively as the market matures and product proliferation increases. Competitors using cannabis-derived actives in topical formats should assess whether their formulation processes or compositions read on this patent’s independent claims.
Should your team run an FTO against US10653736B2?
Any company formulating, manufacturing, or distributing topical products that incorporate cannabis sp. or hemp-derived botanical extracts should assess exposure to US10653736B2. This is particularly relevant for brands in the CBD skincare, hemp wellness, and over-the-counter topical pain relief segments. The patent has been asserted in active litigation, and the defendant’s rapid settlement suggests the claims carry commercial weight worth evaluating before market entry or product expansion.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the independent claims of US10653736B2 against your product formulation and flag overlapping prior art or design-around opportunities. Eureka’s claim analysis tools allow R&D and IP teams to identify which specific formulation parameters are covered and where product differentiation can reduce infringement risk — accelerating clearance decisions without requiring full outside-counsel opinion at the scoping stage.
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 patent infringement actions involving cannabis-derived and hemp botanical formulations filed in U.S. district courts, including comparable W.D. Wisconsin proceedings.
What this case signals for the cannabis topical IP landscape
A rapid pre-trial settlement in a cannabis patent case often masks a commercial licensing dynamic worth tracking across the sector.
Pre-trial settlement suggests patent holder holds credible infringement position
Cases that settle within six months of filing — before claim construction or any dispositive motion — typically indicate the defendant assessed the infringement risk as real. For hemp and CBD topical product companies, US10653736B2 should be treated as a commercially active patent with demonstrated enforcement intent.
Without-prejudice dismissals in patent settlements require active monitoring
Until the parties convert this to a with-prejudice dismissal, the case technically remains reopenable. IP teams at cannabis topical companies should monitor the docket for a follow-on motion, which will confirm whether the settlement terms were satisfied and the dispute is permanently closed.
Metronome v BioSpectrum — key questions answered
US10653736B2 is the patent asserted by Metronome LLC in this case. It covers topical treatment formulations incorporating cannabis species-derived botanical drug products. The application number is US16/257389. Metronome alleged that BioSpectrum Hemp’s topical hemp products infringed this patent, though the case settled before any claim construction or merits ruling.
The court dismissed the case without prejudice after the parties jointly notified it that they had reached a settlement. Rather than granting the requested stay of deadlines, the court dismissed the action without prejudice and noted that parties may move to dismiss with prejudice once the settlement is fully executed. This is standard practice — it avoids a dormant stay while preserving the ability to reopen if the settlement collapses.
No. A dismissal without prejudice makes no finding on the merits — there is no ruling on whether BioSpectrum Hemp infringed US10653736B2 or whether the patent is valid. The case ended by settlement, and the terms of that settlement are not public. The patent itself remains valid and enforceable against other parties.
The case lasted 190 days from filing (February 26, 2025) to closure (September 4, 2025). This is notably short for patent litigation, which typically extends 2–3 years to trial. A pre-trial resolution of this speed — before any substantive motions — is consistent with a commercial settlement or licensing arrangement, suggesting both parties preferred a negotiated resolution over protracted litigation.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin (Case No. 3:25-cv-00144). Metronome LLC was represented by Isaac Rabicoff of Rabicoff Law LLC. BioSpectrum Hemp was represented by Monica Ann Mark of Reinhart, Boerner & Van Deuren SC. No judge is recorded in the publicly available case data.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.