Metronome LLC v. The Well Theory LLC — Dismissed With Prejudice in 165 Days
Metronome LLC filed a patent infringement action in the Delaware District Court against The Well Theory, LLC over US9095563B2, a patent covering cannabis-derived topical treatments. The case closed in 165 days via voluntary dismissal with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), with each party bearing its own costs — before any answer or summary judgment motion was filed.
Cannabis topical patent suit ends before defendant files any response
On 10 March 2025, Metronome LLC filed a patent infringement complaint against The Well Theory, LLC in the District of Delaware before Judge Colm F. Connolly. The asserted patent, US9095563B2 (application no. US14/498555), covers topical treatments incorporating Cannabis sp. derived botanical drug products — a formulation technology relevant to the rapidly expanding cannabinoid wellness and pharmaceutical market. Metronome alleged that The Well Theory’s products infringed this patent.
The case closed on 22 August 2025, 165 days after filing, via Metronome’s voluntary notice of dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). Because no answer or motion for summary judgment had been filed by The Well Theory, Metronome could dismiss unilaterally by notice — no court order was required. The with-prejudice designation is critical: Metronome permanently relinquished its right to re-assert these specific infringement claims against The Well Theory on the same patent.
The resolution timeline — less than six months, before any responsive pleading — is consistent with a negotiated resolution reached outside court, though the public record does not disclose any settlement terms. The cost-neutrality provision, expressly stating each party bears its own fees, is a common feature of commercially negotiated exits but does not confirm a settlement. What drove Metronome to accept with-prejudice finality at this early stage remains undisclosed; possibilities include a licensing arrangement, a product redesign by the defendant, or a commercial agreement.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 165 days
165-day lifespan — resolved before any responsive pleading was filed
Dismissed with prejudice: what the Rule 41 exit means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) dismissal: plaintiff acts unilaterally, no court order needed
Under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a plaintiff may dismiss an action without a court order by filing a notice, provided the defendant has not yet served an answer or a motion for summary judgment. Here, The Well Theory had filed neither, so Metronome held the unilateral right to exit. The with-prejudice election goes beyond the rule’s default — a voluntary dismissal is typically without prejudice unless otherwise stated — signalling a deliberate, permanent relinquishment of these claims.
Voluntary, pre-answer, unilateral exitMetronome permanently forfeits these infringement claims against The Well Theory
By electing dismissal with prejudice, Metronome cannot re-file the same patent infringement claims against The Well Theory on US9095563B2 for the accused conduct. This is a binding, final disposition on the merits for res judicata purposes. The strategic rationale — whether a licence, commercial deal, or abandonment of the case — is not disclosed in the public record. Metronome retains the patent and may still enforce it against third parties.
Claims permanently extinguished vs. this defendantThe Well Theory exits with prejudice protection and no costs exposure
The Well Theory achieved a final exit without having to file an answer, without any finding of infringement, and without any fee or cost award against it. The with-prejudice nature of the dismissal protects The Well Theory from future litigation by Metronome on the same claims. The absence of any public admission or finding means The Well Theory’s product line carries no judicial record of infringement for US9095563B2.
No infringement finding; cost-neutral exitEarly pre-answer exits in cannabis IP often signal commercial resolution
In the cannabinoid topical sector, patent enforcement actions resolved before any responsive pleading — particularly with prejudice — frequently reflect licensing or product-level agreements rather than litigation fatigue. US9095563B2 remains active and enforceable against other market participants. Companies in the cannabis-derived topical formulation space should note that Metronome retains the ability to assert this patent in future enforcement actions, and the pre-answer resolution offers no claim construction or validity guidance.
Patent remains live; sector risk persistsFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Metronome LLC | Company | Cannabis botanical drug product patent holder — holder of US9095563B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | The Well Theory, LLC | Company | The Well Theory, LLC — wellness product company alleged to infringe cannabis topical patentSearch 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 ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Helena C. Rychlicki | Attorney | Counsel for The Well Theory, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Pinckney, Weidinger, Urban & Joyce LLC | Law Firm | Representing The Well Theory, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Colm F. Connolly | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) precisely because no answer had been filed, preserving Metronome’s unilateral right to exit. The with-prejudice designation is a deliberate legal election — it converts what would default to a without-prejudice dismissal into a final merits disposition, barring re-litigation of these specific claims against The Well Theory. The cost-neutrality clause confirms neither party obtained a judicial advantage. No claim construction, infringement finding, or validity ruling was made, leaving US9095563B2’s scope entirely untested on the public record.
US9095563B2 — Cannabis-derived topical botanical drug product formulations
US9095563B2, filed under application number US14/498555, protects topical treatment formulations incorporating Cannabis sp. derived botanical drug products. This patent sits at the intersection of pharmaceutical formulation and cannabinoid therapeutics — a technically complex domain where the active ingredient classification, delivery mechanism, and botanical sourcing all bear on claim scope. The patent’s issued status means it carries a presumption of validity, and its formulation focus suggests claims likely directed to composition, concentration, or application methodology.
In the rapidly expanding cannabinoid topical market — spanning OTC wellness products, dermatological treatments, and emerging pharmaceutical applications — formulation patents like US9095563B2 represent meaningful competitive moats. Metronome’s enforcement action against The Well Theory suggests active assertion strategy. With no invalidity challenge on the record and no claim construction guidance available from this case, the patent’s effective scope remains commercially uncertain, heightening risk for any company operating in the cannabis-derived topical formulation space.
Should you run an FTO analysis against US9095563B2?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing topical products incorporating cannabis-derived botanical ingredients should treat US9095563B2 as a live enforcement risk. Metronome’s active assertion posture — filing suit in Delaware, a plaintiff-favoured IP venue — and the lack of any invalidation record means this patent has never been successfully challenged. R&D teams formulating CBD, CBG, or other cannabinoid topicals for consumer or clinical markets should conduct an FTO review before product launch or line extension.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map US9095563B2’s claim language against your product formulation, identify relevant prior art that may constrain claim scope, and surface related Metronome portfolio filings that could indicate broader enforcement intent. Eureka’s citation and family analysis also helps identify whether continuation or divisional applications extend the risk horizon beyond the issued patent, giving IP and product teams a complete picture before commercial decisions are made.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9095563B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar cannabis topical patent infringement cases in US District Courts
Cases involving cannabis-derived topical formulation patents in Delaware and other US district courts — relevant for benchmarking enforcement strategy and outcome patterns.
What this case signals for the cannabis topical patent IP landscape
A pre-answer, with-prejudice exit in cannabis IP typically signals more than a dropped case — here is what practitioners and product teams should take away.
US9095563B2 remains fully enforceable against all other market participants
The dismissal resolves only Metronome’s claims against The Well Theory. No claim construction, no invalidity ruling, and no licence terms are in the public record. Competitors and adjacent product makers in the cannabis topical space face the same infringement risk from this patent as they did before this case was filed.
Pre-answer with-prejudice dismissals can mask undisclosed licensing deals
The combination of with-prejudice finality, cost-neutrality, and a sub-six-month timeline is consistent with a confidential licensing or commercial agreement. IP teams monitoring the cannabinoid topical sector should treat this outcome as a potential signal that Metronome is actively licensing — not simply abandoning — US9095563B2.
Metronome v Well — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice in this case means Metronome permanently relinquished its infringement claims against The Well Theory under US9095563B2. Metronome cannot re-file the same claims against The Well Theory for the same accused conduct. The dismissal was filed under FRCP 41(a)(1)(A)(i), available because no answer had been filed.
No public settlement agreement has been disclosed. The dismissal notice states only that each party bears its own costs. The pre-answer timing, with-prejudice election, and cost-neutrality are consistent with a confidential commercial or licensing resolution, but the public record does not confirm any settlement terms.
US9095563B2, filed as application US14/498555, covers topical treatments incorporating Cannabis sp. derived botanical drug products. It is asserted by Metronome LLC. The patent relates to cannabinoid topical formulations, a technology area spanning consumer wellness and pharmaceutical applications. No claim construction from this case is available.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice resolves only Metronome’s claims against The Well Theory, LLC. Metronome retains full ownership of US9095563B2 and may enforce it against any other company whose products are alleged to infringe. The patent has not been adjudicated invalid or unenforceable in any proceeding on the public record.
Delaware District Court is a frequently selected venue for patent infringement cases due to Delaware’s incorporation law, established IP procedures, and experienced judges. Judge Colm F. Connolly is known for rigorous early case management practices. Filing in Delaware is consistent with a patent plaintiff seeking a predictable, well-resourced forum for IP enforcement.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.