Neurocentria v. Green Jeeva: 10-Patent Magtein® Infringement Action Voluntarily Dismissed
Neurocentria, Inc. brought a 10-patent infringement action against ingredient supplier Green Jeeva, LLC in the Central District of California, asserting its Magtein® magnesium L-threonate portfolio. The case closed via voluntary dismissal just 96 days after filing, leaving the precise terms — and whether any agreement was reached — undisclosed in the public record.
A 10-patent Magtein® portfolio deployed — then quietly withdrawn in 96 days
On 15 August 2024, Neurocentria, Inc. filed a patent infringement complaint against Green Jeeva, LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California (Case No. 2:24-cv-06919). The action asserted ten U.S. patents — including US9125878B2, US8163301B2, US8637061B2, US8178133B2, US8142803B2, US8470352B2, US8178118B2, US8734855B2, US8178132B2, and US8377473B2 — all directed to compositions and methods relating to the Magtein® magnesium L-threonate ingredient.
The case closed on 19 November 2024 via a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Neurocentria. The public docket records this as a voluntary dismissal, but does not specify whether the dismissal was with or without prejudice, nor whether any settlement agreement or licensing arrangement accompanied the filing. Absent a court order specifying prejudice, the default rule under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) would typically render a first voluntary dismissal without prejudice — though this cannot be confirmed from the public record alone.
Resolution in under 100 days is notably swift for a ten-patent infringement action, suggesting the parties may have reached a private resolution — commercial, licensing, or otherwise — shortly after the complaint was served. No defendant counsel of record appears on the docket, which is consistent with early settlement or a pre-answer agreement. What drove the outcome and whether any ongoing obligations bind either party remain unknown from publicly available information.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 96 days
96 days — resolved well before any scheduling order or claim construction phase would typically complete
Voluntarily dismissed: what the public record does — and does not — tell us
Voluntary dismissal: Rule 41 and what it leaves open
A Notice of Voluntary Dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1) allows a plaintiff to exit a case unilaterally before the defendant has answered or moved for summary judgment. The critical question is prejudice: a first voluntary dismissal is presumptively without prejudice unless the notice specifies otherwise. The public docket here is silent on this point, meaning the record alone cannot confirm whether Neurocentria retains the right to refile against Green Jeeva on the same patents.
Prejudice status: unconfirmedWith prejudice vs. without prejudice — and why it matters here
A dismissal with prejudice bars the plaintiff from ever refiling the same claims against the same defendant — it is a final adjudication on the merits. A dismissal without prejudice preserves the right to refile. Where the notice is silent, Rule 41 defaults to without prejudice on a first dismissal. The public record for this case does not specify which applies, so neither outcome can be asserted with certainty. Parties monitoring Neurocentria’s enforcement posture should track for any subsequent filings against Green Jeeva.
Public record is silentNeurocentria exits early — portfolio enforcement posture intact
Neurocentria’s decision to dismiss within 96 days, before any substantive litigation milestones, suggests the filing may have achieved its commercial objective — whether that was a licensing agreement, supply-chain adjustment, or simply a signal to the market. The ten asserted patents remain in force and are available for future enforcement. If the dismissal was without prejudice, Neurocentria retains the option to refile against Green Jeeva or pursue other alleged infringers in the Magtein® ingredient supply chain.
Portfolio remains enforceableGreen Jeeva avoids a full-scale patent fight — for now
Green Jeeva faced a ten-patent assertion covering a core ingredient in its catalogue. The absence of defendant counsel on record and the speed of dismissal are consistent with an early private resolution. However, if the dismissal was without prejudice, Green Jeeva’s exposure to further Neurocentria enforcement is not necessarily extinguished. Suppliers of magnesium L-threonate — the active compound in Magtein® — should note that Neurocentria’s portfolio remains a live risk across the ingredient supply chain.
Potential re-exposure if w/o prejudiceFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Neurocentria, Inc | Company | Nutraceutical IP licensor — holder of the Magtein® magnesium L-threonate patent portfolioSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Green Jeeva, LLC | Company | Green Jeeva, LLC — ingredient supplier alleged to have infringed Magtein® patentsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Aaron M. Williams | Attorney | Counsel for Neurocentria, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Adam S. Hamburg | Attorney | Counsel for Neurocentria, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Christopher L. Wald | Attorney | Counsel for Neurocentria, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Jason E. Mueller | Attorney | Counsel for Neurocentria, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Vorys, Sater, Seymour & Pease LLP | Law Firm | Representing Neurocentria, IncSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge N/A | Judge | California Central District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The verdict is recorded as a ‘Notice of Voluntary Dismissal’ — a plaintiff-initiated procedural exit rather than a merits adjudication. The notice does not specify whether dismissal is with or without prejudice, which is the central unresolved question for both parties. Under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a first voluntary dismissal before answer is typically without prejudice by default, but the absence of a confirming court order means the precise legal effect cannot be stated with certainty from the public record. No monetary judgment, injunction, or claim construction ruling issued.
US9125878B2 and 9 further patents — Magtein® magnesium L-threonate compositions
The ten asserted patents — anchored by US9125878B2 (application no. US14/132980) and extending through a family of applications filed from 2008 onward — protect compositions, formulations, and methods of use relating to magnesium L-threonate, the active compound commercialised under the Magtein® brand. This compound has attracted scientific and commercial attention for its purported ability to elevate brain magnesium levels more effectively than conventional magnesium salts. The breadth of the portfolio — spanning composition claims, method-of-use claims, and formulation approaches — suggests a deliberate strategy to create overlapping protection across the ingredient value chain.
For the nutraceutical sector, the Magtein® patent family represents one of the more systematically constructed ingredient IP estates in the cognitive health supplement space. Any company sourcing, processing, distributing, or incorporating magnesium L-threonate into finished products faces potential exposure across multiple claim types. The portfolio’s age — with several patents issued between 2012 and 2015 — means some are approaching or past the midpoint of their 20-year term, but the newer grants (e.g. US9125878B2) extend protection further. Competitors and formulators should map their product specifications against each patent’s independent claims before entering this ingredient category.
Should you run an FTO against the Magtein® patent family?
Any company commercialising magnesium L-threonate — whether as a raw ingredient supplier, contract manufacturer, private-label brand, or finished-product marketer — should treat the Neurocentria portfolio as a live enforcement risk. This case demonstrates that Neurocentria is willing to assert all ten patents simultaneously and in federal court. The swift resolution against Green Jeeva does not extinguish that risk for other market participants; it may in fact signal an active enforcement programme targeting the supply chain.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent can map each of the ten asserted patents against your specific product specifications, sourcing arrangements, and claim language — identifying which independent and dependent claims present the highest exposure. Eureka can also flag related continuations, divisionals, or international equivalents that may not appear in a manual search. For R&D and regulatory teams developing magnesium L-threonate-containing products, an Eureka FTO report provides the documented due diligence needed to inform commercial decisions and licensing negotiations.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US9125878B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar magnesium L-threonate and nutraceutical ingredient patent cases
Explore related patent infringement actions involving dietary supplement ingredients and nutraceutical compositions filed in California federal courts.
What this case signals for the nutraceutical ingredient IP landscape
A 10-patent assertion resolved in under 100 days highlights the leverage patent portfolios carry in the supplement ingredient supply chain.
Early resolution suggests patent filings can function as commercial leverage
The 96-day lifecycle — with no defendant appearance on the docket — is consistent with a filing designed to prompt a licensing or supply agreement rather than litigate to judgment. Ingredient suppliers and private-label formulators should treat a Neurocentria complaint as a signal to audit their magnesium L-threonate sourcing against the full patent portfolio before responding.
Ten-patent stacking amplifies enforcement pressure on ingredient suppliers
Asserting ten patents simultaneously raises the cost and complexity of any invalidity or non-infringement defence. For a supplier like Green Jeeva, contesting even a subset of those patents would require significant resources. This stacking strategy is increasingly common in nutraceutical ingredient IP and signals that broad portfolio assembly — not just individual patent strength — is a key enforcement tool in this sector.
Neurocentria v Green — key questions answered
Neurocentria asserted ten U.S. patents: US9125878B2, US8163301B2, US8637061B2, US8178133B2, US8142803B2, US8470352B2, US8178118B2, US8734855B2, US8178132B2, and US8377473B2. All relate to compositions and methods covering the Magtein® magnesium L-threonate ingredient. The action was filed on 15 August 2024 in the Central District of California.
The public docket records a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without specifying prejudice terms. Under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41(a)(1)(A)(i), a first voluntary dismissal before answer is presumptively without prejudice absent a contrary court order, but the precise terms are not confirmed by the public record. Parties monitoring Neurocentria’s enforcement activity should track for any subsequent filings.
Magtein® is a branded form of magnesium L-threonate, a magnesium salt claimed to cross the blood-brain barrier more effectively than standard magnesium forms. Neurocentria holds a portfolio of U.S. patents covering its compositions, formulations, and methods of use. The commercial value of the ingredient in cognitive health supplements makes it a high-stakes enforcement target across the supply chain.
The case resolved in 96 days, before Green Jeeva filed any appearance or responsive pleading. This pattern — rapid voluntary dismissal after filing — is consistent with a private resolution, licensing agreement, or commercial arrangement reached outside court. The public record does not disclose the terms. No settlement documents are publicly available.
Yes, based on available information. The ten asserted patents remain in force following the dismissal, and Neurocentria’s willingness to assert all of them in federal court suggests an active enforcement posture. Suppliers, contract manufacturers, and finished-product brands using magnesium L-threonate should conduct FTO analysis against the full patent family before commercialising affected products.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.