Metronome LLC v. PureKana LLC: Cannabis Topical Patent Suit Voluntarily Dismissed
Metronome LLC filed suit against CBD brand PureKana LLC in Delaware District Court, asserting US10653736B2 covering cannabis-derived topical drug formulations. The case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice 108 days after filing, before PureKana answered the complaint — leaving the door open for future enforcement.
Pre-Answer Voluntary Dismissal in a Cannabis Topical Patent Dispute
On March 10, 2025, Metronome LLC filed a patent infringement action against PureKana LLC in the United States District Court for the District of Delaware, before Judge Colm F. Connolly. The suit centred on US10653736B2, a granted US patent directed to topical treatment formulations incorporating cannabis species-derived botanical drug products — a category covering the fast-growing CBD and hemp-derived topical skincare and therapeutic segment.
On June 26, 2025, Metronome voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i), which allows a plaintiff to dismiss unilaterally before the defendant has filed an answer or a motion for summary judgment. PureKana had not yet responded to the complaint at the point of dismissal. No settlement terms, licensing agreement, or merits determination are reflected in the public record.
The 108-day lifespan of this case is shorter than most patent infringement actions, and the timing — a dismissal just as PureKana’s response would have been due — is consistent with several plausible dynamics: out-of-court licensing discussions, a strategic reassessment by Metronome, or a decision to refile in a different forum. Because the dismissal is without prejudice, Metronome retains the right to reassert US10653736B2 against PureKana or other parties in future proceedings, subject to applicable statutes of limitations.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 108 days
108 days — resolved before defendant answered; faster than the median district court patent case
Voluntarily dismissed: what the FRCP 41 exit means for both parties
FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i): plaintiff’s unilateral right to exit
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) permits a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order — and without prejudice by default — before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. PureKana had not yet answered, so Metronome exercised this right unilaterally. No judicial approval was required, and no merits were assessed.
No court order requiredPublic record is silent on ‘with prejudice’ — an important distinction
A dismissal without prejudice allows the plaintiff to refile the same claims; a dismissal with prejudice extinguishes them permanently. Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), dismissals are without prejudice unless the plaintiff specifies otherwise. The filing here is explicitly without prejudice — meaning Metronome’s patent claims against PureKana remain legally alive. No settlement or licence is confirmed in the public docket.
Refiling risk remainsPureKana exits without a merits win — exposure not extinguished
PureKana secured no judicial finding of non-infringement or invalidity. The dismissal without prejudice means the threat of re-litigation under US10653736B2 is not resolved. Competitors and cannabis topical brands in similar positions should note that a pre-answer dismissal provides no estoppel protection for the defendant on the patent’s merits.
No estoppel for defendantCannabis topical IP enforcement: a live and recurring risk
The voluntary dismissal without prejudice suggests Metronome’s patent enforcement programme around cannabis-derived topical formulations is ongoing rather than concluded. Brands operating in the CBD topical, hemp botanical drug, and cannabis skincare segments should treat US10653736B2 as an active enforcement risk. The pattern of pre-answer dismissal may indicate parallel licensing conversations or a broader multi-defendant strategy.
Enforcement risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Metronome LLC | Company | Cannabis-derived botanical drug patent holder — asserting US10653736B2 in topical treatment spaceSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Purekana, LLC | Company | PureKana LLC — CBD and hemp-derived wellness and topical product brandSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Antranig N. Garibian | Attorney | Counsel for Metronome LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Garibian Law Offices, PC | Law Firm | Representing Metronome LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Colm F. Connolly | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) explicitly and confirms PureKana had not answered or moved for summary judgment — making the dismissal self-executing and without prejudice by operation of law. The phrasing reflects a clean procedural exit by Metronome, with no concessions, no merits findings, and no cost exposure. For PureKana, the absence of a with-prejudice dismissal or a consent order means its legal exposure under US10653736B2 is unchanged.
US10653736B2 — Cannabis-Derived Topical Botanical Drug Formulations
US10653736B2, filed under application number US16/257389, covers topical treatment formulations that incorporate cannabis species-derived botanical drug products. The patent sits at the intersection of pharmaceutical formulation and the regulated cannabinoid space — a technically and regulatorily complex domain. Its granted status means it has survived USPTO examination, providing Metronome with a presumption of validity that defendants must overcome by clear and convincing evidence.
The commercial relevance of this patent is substantial: the CBD and cannabis-derived topical market includes pain-relief balms, anti-inflammatory creams, skincare formulations, and transdermal delivery products. Any brand commercialising topical products with cannabis-derived botanical active ingredients — whether hemp-derived CBD, CBG, or other phytocannabinoid extracts — should assess their exposure to US10653736B2. The PureKana litigation suggests Metronome is actively monitoring this space for enforcement targets.
Should your cannabis topical product be cleared against US10653736B2?
R&D and regulatory teams developing topical products incorporating hemp-derived CBD, phytocannabinoid extracts, or botanical cannabis drug substances should conduct a formal freedom-to-operate assessment against US10653736B2. The patent’s granted claims define the risk perimeter — and given Metronome’s demonstrated willingness to litigate in Delaware, the cost of a late-stage FTO finding is materially higher than an early assessment.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can rapidly map the claim scope of US10653736B2 against your product formulation, flag prior art that may support a design-around, and surface related patents in the US16/257389 family. For cannabis-adjacent product teams, Eureka can also identify continuation applications that may extend coverage into adjacent formulation approaches — reducing the risk of clearance that ages out.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10653736B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Cannabis & Botanical Drug Patent Cases in Delaware District Court
Cases involving cannabis-derived formulation patents at Delaware District Court, including NPE enforcement actions and botanical drug product IP disputes.
What this case signals for the cannabis topical IP landscape
A rapid pre-answer dismissal in Delaware rarely signals the end of a patent enforcement campaign — it often signals a pivot.
Pre-answer dismissals often precede licensing deals or refilings
When a patentee voluntarily dismisses before the defendant answers, it frequently indicates either a settlement negotiation has moved off-docket or the plaintiff is repositioning. Cannabis topical brands receiving demand letters or complaints should treat this pattern as a live risk signal, not a cleared threat.
US10653736B2 remains fully enforceable against any third party
The dismissal does not affect the patent’s validity, scope, or enforceability. Any competitor formulating topical treatments incorporating cannabis-derived botanical drug products should assess their FTO position against this patent independently of the PureKana outcome.
Metronome v Purekana — key questions answered
The voluntary dismissal without prejudice under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i) means no court ruled on whether PureKana infringed US10653736B2. PureKana has no estoppel protection from this outcome. Metronome retains the right to refile the same patent claims against PureKana in future proceedings.
Yes. Because the dismissal is explicitly without prejudice, Metronome may refile claims under US10653736B2 against PureKana, subject to the applicable statute of limitations (generally six years for patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 286). A second voluntary dismissal, however, would typically operate as a dismissal with prejudice under the ‘two-dismissal rule’ of FRCP 41(a)(1)(B).
US10653736B2 is a granted US patent, filed as application US16/257389, directed to topical treatment formulations incorporating cannabis species-derived botanical drug products. It covers the formulation of topical products — such as creams, balms, or transdermal preparations — using cannabis-derived active botanical ingredients, a category relevant to the CBD and hemp wellness industry.
Delaware is a common venue for patent infringement suits because many US corporations are incorporated there, establishing personal jurisdiction. Judge Colm F. Connolly, the assigned judge, presides over one of the most active patent dockets in the country. The choice of Delaware is consistent with a plaintiff seeking a procedurally predictable venue with established patent litigation infrastructure.
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to voluntarily dismiss an action without a court order before the defendant serves an answer or a summary judgment motion. In patent cases, this mechanism is frequently used to exit litigation cleanly — whether following a licensing agreement, a strategic reassessment, or preparation for refiling. The dismissal is without prejudice by default, preserving the plaintiff’s right to refile.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.