Metronome v. SunFlora: Cannabis Topical Patent Dismissed With Prejudice in 84 Days
Metronome LLC asserted US10653736B2 — covering topical treatments incorporating cannabis-derived botanical drug products — against SunFlora Inc. in Florida’s Middle District. The parties jointly stipulated to dismiss with prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(ii), each bearing its own costs, closing the case just 84 days after filing.
Cannabis Topical Patent Claim Resolved Swiftly, No Fee Award
On July 16, 2025, Metronome LLC filed a patent infringement action in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida against SunFlora Inc., asserting US10653736B2. The patent-in-suit covers topical treatments incorporating cannabis sp. derived botanical drug products — a technology area of growing commercial significance as the hemp and CBD topical market expands. SunFlora, operating in the cannabis-derived wellness and topical space, was identified as allegedly infringing this granted U.S. patent.
The case closed on October 8, 2025 — just 84 days after filing — via a joint stipulation of dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(ii). Dismissal with prejudice is a permanent bar: Metronome relinquishes the right to reassert the same claims against SunFlora in future litigation. Notably, the stipulation specifies that each party shall bear its own costs, expenses, and attorneys’ fees, indicating no monetary exchange was publicly disclosed as part of the resolution terms.
An 84-day resolution is notably short for patent litigation, which typically stretches 18–36 months through trial. The speed and mutual cost-bearing structure are consistent with a negotiated resolution reached shortly after service — possibly reflecting a licensing agreement, covenant not to sue, or other commercial arrangement — though the public record is silent on any such terms. Whether Metronome secured any commercial consideration from SunFlora remains unknown from the docket alone.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 84 days
84 days — well below the median patent case duration, suggesting early resolution
Dismissed with prejudice: what the joint stipulation means for both parties
Rule 41 joint stipulation ends the case permanently
A dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(ii) requires agreement from all parties who have appeared. Dismissal with prejudice is a final adjudication on the merits for res judicata purposes — Metronome cannot reassert these specific patent claims against SunFlora in any future federal action. The court typically plays no role in approving the substance of such a stipulation.
Permanent bar on refilingWith prejudice vs. without prejudice: a critical legal divide
Dismissal with prejudice permanently extinguishes the plaintiff’s claims — Metronome cannot sue SunFlora again on US10653736B2 for the same accused products. Dismissal without prejudice would have preserved that right. The parties here explicitly chose the stronger finality of a with-prejudice dismissal, which typically signals a concluded commercial arrangement rather than a simple abandonment of litigation.
Claims extinguishedSunFlora secures permanent protection from this claim
SunFlora exits the litigation with the strongest possible procedural shield: Metronome is permanently barred from reasserting US10653736B2 infringement claims against it for these accused topical products. The mutual cost-bearing provision means SunFlora absorbs its own legal spend — represented by Squire Patton Boggs — but faces no ongoing litigation exposure from this patent assertion.
No future re-exposureCannabis topical IP landscape: early resolution raises questions
The swift, with-prejudice resolution suggests the parties reached a commercial accommodation outside the public record — possibly a license, a design-around, or a covenant not to sue. For other cannabis topical manufacturers, US10653736B2 remains an active, enforceable patent. Metronome may assert it against other defendants. Companies in the cannabis-derived botanical topical space should treat this outcome as a signal that this patent is actively monitored and enforced.
Patent remains enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Metronome, LLC | Company | Cannabis IP assertion entity — holder of US10653736B2 covering botanical topical treatmentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | SunFlora, Inc. | Company | SunFlora Inc. — cannabis-derived wellness and topical product companySearch 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 | Law Firm | Representing Metronome, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Rabicoff Law LLC | Law Firm | Representing Metronome, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jonathan Ross Weiss | Attorney | Counsel for SunFlora, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Steven M. Auvil | Attorney | Counsel for SunFlora, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Squire Patton Boggs (US) LLP | Law Firm | Representing SunFlora, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | Florida Middle District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The joint stipulation language — ‘dismiss this action with prejudice’ with each party bearing its own costs — is carefully constructed to achieve maximum finality with minimum public disclosure. The with-prejudice designation makes the dismissal operate as a merits adjudication for claim-preclusion purposes, permanently protecting SunFlora. The symmetric cost provision suggests neither party secured a clear negotiating advantage sufficient to shift fees, though it does not foreclose the possibility of a private commercial arrangement between the parties outside the docket.
US10653736B2 — Cannabis-Derived Botanical Topical Drug Product
US10653736B2, filed under application number US16/257389, covers topical treatments incorporating cannabis sp. derived botanical drug products. This patent sits at the intersection of pharmaceutical formulation and cannabis-derived active ingredient technology — a domain that has attracted significant commercial and regulatory attention since U.S. hemp legalisation under the 2018 Farm Bill. The patent’s granted claims define specific formulation approaches for cannabis-derived topical therapeutics, giving the holder enforceable rights over a commercially active product category.
For the cannabis-derived topical sector, US10653736B2 represents meaningful IP risk. As CBD and botanical drug topical products proliferate across retail, medical, and cosmeceutical channels, the claim scope of this patent may capture formulation strategies used widely across the market. The fact that Metronome was willing to litigate — and SunFlora, represented by Squire Patton Boggs, resolved quickly — is consistent with a patent that carries sufficient claim credibility to motivate commercial resolution rather than prolonged invalidity proceedings.
Should your cannabis topical product be cleared against US10653736B2?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or distributing topical products incorporating cannabis-derived botanical ingredients in the U.S. market should assess its exposure to US10653736B2. This includes CBD topical creams, balms, salves, and therapeutic patches where a cannabis sp. botanical drug substance forms part of the active ingredient profile. The case against SunFlora demonstrates that the patent holder is actively monitoring the market and willing to file in federal court.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map the claim language of US10653736B2 against your product formulation, identify prior art that may support an invalidity argument, and surface related prosecution history that constrains or expands claim scope. For R&D and product teams operating in cannabis topicals, running this analysis before product launch or a new market entry materially reduces downstream litigation exposure.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10653736B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Cannabis Patent Infringement Cases in U.S. District Courts
Cases involving cannabis-derived botanical drug product patents litigated in U.S. district courts, with comparable assertion and early resolution profiles.
What this case signals for the cannabis topical IP landscape
A swift dismissal with prejudice in a cannabis patent case rarely means the patent is weak — it often means a deal was struck quickly.
US10653736B2 remains live and enforceable against other market participants
The dismissal with prejudice only protects SunFlora. Metronome retains full rights to assert US10653736B2 against other cannabis topical manufacturers. Companies selling comparable botanical drug topical formulations in the U.S. should treat this outcome as a signal that the patent holder is active and willing to litigate in Florida’s Middle District.
84-day resolution signals deal-making, not patent weakness
A case this short rarely reflects a merits determination. The with-prejudice structure and mutual cost-bearing provision together suggest a negotiated resolution — potentially a license or covenant not to sue — reached well before any substantive court proceedings. The absence of public terms is itself commercially significant for competitors watching the space.
Metronome v SunFlora — key questions answered
Dismissal with prejudice permanently bars Metronome from reasserting the same patent claims under US10653736B2 against SunFlora for the accused topical products. SunFlora is fully protected from any future re-litigation of these specific claims by Metronome.
Yes. The dismissal with prejudice only affects Metronome’s rights against SunFlora specifically. US10653736B2 remains a granted, enforceable U.S. patent. Metronome retains full rights to assert it against other parties in the cannabis topical market.
The 84-day resolution is well below typical patent litigation timelines. While the public record does not disclose terms, the with-prejudice dismissal and mutual cost-bearing structure are consistent with a negotiated commercial resolution — such as a license or covenant not to sue — reached shortly after service and before substantive court proceedings began.
The mutual cost-bearing provision means no attorney fee award was made under 35 U.S.C. § 285 or otherwise. It suggests neither party achieved a result strong enough to justify a fee-shifting motion, and is typical of negotiated resolutions where both sides prioritise finality over cost recovery.
The case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida (Case No. 8:25-cv-01846) on July 16, 2025. Metronome LLC asserted US10653736B2 — a patent covering topical treatments incorporating cannabis sp. derived botanical drug products — against SunFlora Inc.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.