Nutramax Laboratories v. GoSupps.com: Sulforaphane Patent Action Dismissed in 6 Days
Nutramax Laboratories filed suit against GoSupps.com LLC in the Western District of Kentucky, asserting three patents covering liposomal sulforaphane formulations embodied in its Osasuna® product. The plaintiff voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice just 6 days after filing — one of the shortest-lived patent suits on record in this district.
A 6-day sulforaphane patent lawsuit that left every question open
On December 12, 2024, Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. filed a patent infringement action against GoSupps.com LLC in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Kentucky before Judge Greg N. Stivers. The complaint asserted three U.S. patents — US10960057B2, US11654186B2, and US10583178B2 — all directed to liposomal sulforaphane compositions and formulations commercially embodied in Nutramax’s Osasuna® product. GoSupps.com is an online supplement retailer whose product offerings apparently overlapped with the protected technology.
On December 18, 2024 — just six days after filing — Nutramax’s counsel filed a notice of voluntary dismissal without prejudice pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i). This procedural mechanism is available to a plaintiff as of right before the defendant serves an answer or a motion for summary judgment. The dismissal extinguished this particular action but expressly preserved Nutramax’s right to refile the same claims against GoSupps.com in the future. No costs or fees were awarded to either party.
A dismissal of this speed — before any defendant counsel appeared — suggests the litigation may have served as a tactical notice or leverage instrument, or that the parties reached a private arrangement within days of filing. The public record is silent on any settlement terms or licensing discussions. Because the dismissal was without prejudice, the three asserted patents remain fully enforceable, and the underlying infringement allegations against GoSupps.com remain unresolved on the merits.
Filing to Voluntary dismissal in 6 days
6 days — resolved before any defendant response was filed
Voluntarily dismissed: what Rule 41 without prejudice means for both parties
Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i): a plaintiff’s unilateral exit right
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41(a)(1)(A)(i) allows a plaintiff to dismiss an action without a court order — and as of right — before the defendant serves an answer or motion for summary judgment. No judicial approval is required. The dismissal here was filed before GoSupps.com entered any appearance, making it textbook use of this rule. Critically, it is not a decision on the merits of the patent claims.
No merits adjudicationWithout prejudice: the claims survive to fight another day
A dismissal ‘without prejudice’ means the action is terminated but Nutramax retains the right to refile the same infringement claims against GoSupps.com. The public record does not disclose whether any private agreement, license, or demand letter was exchanged between the parties. It would be incorrect to infer settlement or capitulation from the dismissal alone — the record is silent on whether any consideration changed hands.
Refiling right preservedGoSupps.com escapes judgment — but faces lingering exposure
GoSupps.com faces no adverse judgment, injunction, or damages award from this action. However, because the dismissal was without prejudice, the threat of re-litigation under the same three patents remains live. If GoSupps.com has not modified its product or obtained a license, it remains exposed to a refiled suit. The absence of any defendant counsel on record suggests the action ended before GoSupps.com mounted any formal defence.
No judgment; exposure remainsNutramax’s sulforaphane patents remain fully enforceable
The voluntary dismissal does not affect the validity or enforceability of US10960057B2, US11654186B2, or US10583178B2. Competitors and private-label supplement sellers marketing liposomal sulforaphane products should treat these patents as active enforcement assets. The speed of this dismissal is consistent with a rapid resolution — whether through informal agreement or tactical recalibration — rather than any weakening of Nutramax’s patent position.
Patents remain enforceableFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Nutramax Laboratories, Inc. | Company | Nutraceutical company — holder of US10960057B2, US11654186B2, and US10583178B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | GoSupps.com LLC | Company | GoSupps.com LLC — online dietary supplement retailerSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Andrew Dorisio | Attorney | Counsel for Nutramax Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Henrik Jonathan Redway | Attorney | Counsel for Nutramax Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Dickinson Wright PLLC | Law Firm | Representing Nutramax Laboratories, Inc.Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Greg N. Stivers | Judge | Kentucky Western District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The dismissal notice invokes Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) in precise, unambiguous terms — ‘without prejudice’ is explicit, leaving no interpretive ambiguity. The phrasing forecloses any argument that claims were adjudicated or waived. For Nutramax, the notice resets the clock entirely. For GoSupps.com, it eliminates immediate litigation exposure while leaving the underlying patent threat unresolved. No court order was required or issued, meaning Judge Stivers made no substantive finding on any issue in the case.
US10960057B2, US11654186B2 & US10583178B2 — Liposomal Sulforaphane Formulations
The three asserted patents — US10960057B2, US11654186B2, and US10583178B2 — cover compositions and methods relating to liposomal sulforaphane, a bioactive compound derived from cruciferous vegetables with documented antioxidant and cytoprotective properties. Liposomal encapsulation is a delivery technology used to enhance the bioavailability and stability of sulforaphane, which degrades rapidly in conventional formulations. These patents were filed across application numbers US14/412191, US16/701644, and US15/244374, indicating a multi-year prosecution strategy building layered protection around the Osasuna® product platform.
Together, the three patents represent a substantial IP moat around liposomal sulforaphane supplementation. For competitors developing or distributing sulforaphane products — particularly those using liposomal delivery mechanisms — each patent must be independently evaluated for claim scope. The fact that Nutramax asserted all three in a single infringement action suggests the patents are viewed as complementary and mutually reinforcing. Any design-around effort would need to navigate all three claim sets simultaneously, significantly raising the cost and complexity of competitive formulation.
Should you run an FTO against US10960057B2, US11654186B2 & US10583178B2?
Any company formulating, co-manufacturing, private-labelling, or retailing a liposomal sulforaphane dietary supplement in the United States should treat these three Nutramax patents as high-priority FTO targets. The decision to sue an online retailer — not just a manufacturer — signals that Nutramax is monitoring the full distribution chain, including e-commerce platforms. A product currently on the market may already fall within one or more claims without an explicit awareness.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent allows you to map your sulforaphane formulation against the claim language of all three asserted patents simultaneously, flagging specific claim elements that may read on your product’s composition, encapsulation method, or dosage form. Eureka also surfaces related prosecution history and continuation risks — critical for a patent family that spans multiple application numbers and filing dates — enabling your team to identify design-around options before the next Nutramax enforcement action is filed.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10960057B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar sulforaphane & liposomal nutraceutical patent cases
Explore related patent infringement cases involving liposomal supplement formulations and dietary supplement IP enforcement in U.S. district courts.
What this case signals for the liposomal nutraceutical IP landscape
A 6-day patent suit is rarely random. For sulforaphane supplement competitors, this case warrants close attention.
Lightning-fast dismissals often signal off-record resolutions
When a plaintiff voluntarily dismisses within days of filing — before the defendant even appears — it typically suggests a rapid private arrangement: a cease-and-desist compliance, a licensing discussion, or a tactical withdrawal to refile in a more favourable venue. No public record confirms what occurred here, but supplement companies should not read this as weakness.
Three asserted patents signal a deliberate, layered enforcement strategy
Asserting three distinct patents covering liposomal sulforaphane compositions (US10960057B2, US11654186B2, US10583178B2) in a single complaint reflects a portfolio-first approach. Any FTO analysis for sulforaphane supplement products must account for all three patents individually — each may cover a different formulation parameter or delivery method.
Nutramax v GoSupps.com — key questions answered
Nutramax Laboratories filed a patent infringement suit against GoSupps.com LLC in the Western District of Kentucky on December 12, 2024, asserting three patents covering liposomal sulforaphane formulations. Six days later, on December 18, 2024, Nutramax voluntarily dismissed the action without prejudice under Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i). No judgment was entered and no costs were awarded.
Nutramax asserted US10960057B2 (application US14/412191), US11654186B2 (application US16/701644), and US10583178B2 (application US15/244374). All three patents relate to liposomal sulforaphane compositions and are commercially embodied in Nutramax’s Osasuna® dietary supplement product.
A voluntary dismissal without prejudice terminates the current action but does not resolve the underlying patent claims on the merits. Nutramax retains the right to refile the same infringement allegations against GoSupps.com in the future. GoSupps.com faces no current judgment or injunction, but its exposure to the three asserted patents remains live unless it obtains a licence or modifies its product.
The public record does not disclose a reason. A dismissal this rapid — before any defendant appearance — is consistent with several possibilities: a private licensing or compliance agreement reached after filing, a tactical decision to refile in a different forum, or a determination that the suit served its intended notice function. None of these scenarios can be confirmed from the docket alone.
No. A Rule 41(a)(1)(A)(i) voluntary dismissal without prejudice has no effect on the validity, scope, or enforceability of the asserted patents. US10960057B2, US11654186B2, and US10583178B2 remain in force and may be asserted in future litigation. Competitors in the liposomal sulforaphane space should treat these patents as active enforcement assets.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.