Soluble Technologies v. Dyla LLC: Electrolyte Beverage Patent Dispute Settles After 561 Days
Soluble Technologies Group LLC brought a three-patent infringement action against Dyla LLC — maker of the Stur electrolyte water enhancer line — in Delaware’s federal district court. The parties reached a confidential settlement, leading to a stipulated dismissal with prejudice across all claims and counterclaims after nearly 19 months of litigation.
Three-Patent Electrolyte Beverage Dispute Ends in Confidential Settlement
Soluble Technologies Group LLC filed suit against Dyla LLC on September 6, 2023 in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware before Judge Maryellen Noreika. The complaint alleged infringement of three patents — US10327462B2, US11744267B2, and US10448659B2 — covering formulations and methods related to liquid water enhancers and electrolyte beverages. The accused products were Dyla’s commercially marketed Stur Electrolytes and Stur LWE product lines, spanning flavors including Black Raspberry, Strawberry Lemon, Peach, Lemonade, Blue & Blackberry, Strawberry Watermelon, Fruit Punch, Pomegranate Cranberry, and Tropical Punch.
The case closed on March 20, 2025, when the parties filed a stipulated dismissal with prejudice under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 41, citing the terms of a settlement agreement. All claims and counterclaims between Soluble Technologies and Dyla were dismissed with prejudice, meaning neither party may re-litigate the same claims. The court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement — a provision that is standard where ongoing obligations, such as licensing royalties or product modifications, form part of the deal.
The litigation ran 561 days, somewhat longer than typical patent settlements, which may suggest substantive claim construction or discovery disputes preceded the resolution. The specific financial terms, licensing arrangements, or product modification commitments — if any — remain confidential and are not disclosed in the public record. The equal costs allocation is consistent with a negotiated compromise rather than a clear win for either side, though the patent holder’s decision to file in Delaware and assert three separate patents signals a well-resourced enforcement strategy from the outset.
Filing to Dismissed with Prejudice in 561 days
561 days — longer than the median U.S. patent case settlement of ~400 days
Dismissed with prejudice: what the settlement dismissal means for both parties
Rule 41 stipulated dismissal with prejudice explained
A dismissal with prejudice under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41 is a final adjudication on the merits — the plaintiff cannot re-file the same claims against the same defendant in any court. Here, it was stipulated, meaning both parties jointly requested it as part of their settlement. The court retaining jurisdiction to enforce the settlement is a key distinction from a simple walkaway dismissal.
Bars re-filing same claimsSoluble Technologies: patents survive, terms confidential
Because no court ruled on validity or infringement, the three asserted patents — US10327462B2, US11744267B2, and US10448659B2 — remain in force and have not been invalidated. Soluble Technologies retains the ability to assert them against third parties. Whether the settlement includes a license, royalty stream, or design-around commitment by Dyla is not publicly disclosed.
Patents remain enforceableDyla LLC: Stur product line continues under undisclosed terms
Dyla avoided a court finding of infringement or an injunction against its Stur product lines. The dismissal with prejudice means Soluble Technologies cannot re-sue Dyla on these specific patents for the same accused products. However, if settlement terms include product modification requirements or royalty obligations, Dyla may face ongoing compliance obligations that are not visible in the public record.
No infringement finding on recordConfidential resolution limits deterrent signal to competitors
Because settlement terms are undisclosed, competing liquid water enhancer and electrolyte brands gain limited intelligence on the strength of Soluble Technologies’ patent portfolio or the cost of licensing. The filing of three patents across multiple product SKUs suggests a broad enforcement posture. Other beverage companies operating in the electrolyte and water enhancer space should treat these patents as active enforcement risks.
Enforcement risk remains activeFull party and counsel information
| Role | Name | Type | Detail |
|---|---|---|---|
| Plaintiff | Soluble Technologies Group, LLC | Company | Beverage formulation patent licensing entity — holder of US10327462B2, US11744267B2, and US10448659B2Search in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant | Dyla, LLC | Company | Dyla LLC — consumer beverage brand, maker of Stur liquid water enhancer and electrolyte productsSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Keith J. Grady | Attorney | Counsel for Soluble Technologies Group, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff counsel | Margaret Fleming England | Attorney | Counsel for Soluble Technologies Group, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Plaintiff law firm | Gellert Seitz Busenkell & Brown, LLC | Law Firm | Representing Soluble Technologies Group, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant counsel | Jennifer Ying | Attorney | Counsel for Dyla, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Defendant law firm | Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP | Law Firm | Representing Dyla, LLCSearch in Eureka ↗ |
| Presiding judge | Judge Maryellen Noreika | Judge | Delaware District CourtSearch in Eureka ↗ |
Official order — verbatim text
The stipulated dismissal with prejudice is procedurally clean but strategically opaque. The with-prejudice designation forecloses re-litigation of these specific claims, protecting Dyla from future suits on the same patents and accused products. Crucially, the court’s retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement implies the resolution is not a simple walkaway — substantive ongoing obligations likely exist. The mutual costs allocation suggests neither party achieved a decisive litigation advantage before settling.
US10327462B2, US11744267B2 & US10448659B2 — Electrolyte Beverage Formulation Patents
The three asserted patents — US10327462B2 (App. US16/120058), US11744267B2 (App. US18/122457), and US10448659B2 (App. US16/373990) — cover formulation technologies in the liquid water enhancer and functional electrolyte beverage space. These patents likely protect specific ingredient combinations, concentration ranges, or delivery methods that enable portable, concentrated electrolyte products. The staggered application numbers suggest a family of related patents prosecuted over multiple years, with the most recent application filed in 2023, indicating ongoing portfolio development.
From a competitive intelligence standpoint, a three-patent family prosecuted across multiple application numbers is consistent with a deliberate effort to build layered protection around core formulation technology. For brands operating in the electrolyte water enhancer segment — a rapidly growing functional beverage category — these patents represent active enforcement assets. The fact that nine distinct Stur product SKUs were named as accused suggests the claims are drafted broadly enough to cover multiple flavour and product variants, not merely a single formulation.
Should you run an FTO against US10327462B2, US11744267B2, and US10448659B2?
Any company developing, manufacturing, or commercialising liquid water enhancers, electrolyte drink concentrates, or functional beverage additives should assess freedom-to-operate against Soluble Technologies’ patent family. The breadth of accused products in this case — spanning nine Stur SKUs across electrolyte and LWE product lines — suggests the claims may capture a wide range of formulation approaches. R&D teams reformulating or launching new electrolyte products should not assume product differentiation alone provides clearance.
PatSnap Eureka’s FTO Search Agent enables rapid claim-mapping against all three patents simultaneously, identifying claim elements, prior art landscapes, and prosecution history estoppels that define the enforceable scope. Eureka can surface related continuation applications, track Soluble Technologies’ broader portfolio for further enforcement risk, and benchmark your formulations against the specific claim limitations at issue — all before your product reaches market.
Run a freedom-to-operate analysis on US10327462B2 to assess your product’s exposure
Run FTO in Eureka →Similar Electrolyte & Functional Beverage Patent Cases in Delaware Federal Court
Cases involving functional beverage formulation patents litigated in Delaware District Court, including electrolyte, water enhancer, and concentrated beverage technologies.
What this case signals for the functional beverage IP landscape
A three-patent enforcement action resolved confidentially in Delaware — the signals for electrolyte and water enhancer brands are worth unpacking.
Delaware remains a favoured venue for beverage formulation patent enforcement
Soluble Technologies’ choice of Delaware for a formulation patent case against a consumer beverage brand reflects the court’s patent-friendly reputation and experienced judiciary. Companies in the functional beverage sector should anticipate Delaware as a primary enforcement forum and ensure IP counsel are mapped to this jurisdiction.
Multi-patent assertions across product lines increase settlement pressure
Asserting three separate patents across nine distinct Stur product SKUs creates substantial exposure for a defendant. Each product line potentially triggers independent damages calculations. This stacking strategy is consistent with licensing-focused plaintiffs who seek settlement rather than injunctive relief — but the pressure it generates is real and commercially significant.
Soluble v Dyla — key questions answered
The case was dismissed with prejudice on March 20, 2025, pursuant to a stipulated settlement agreement under Fed. R. Civ. P. 41. All claims and counterclaims were dismissed, each party bears its own costs, and the Delaware District Court retained jurisdiction to enforce the settlement terms.
Soluble Technologies asserted three patents: US10327462B2, US11744267B2, and US10448659B2. These patents cover formulations and technologies in the liquid water enhancer and electrolyte beverage space. The accused products included nine Stur-branded Electrolytes and LWE product line variants.
No. A stipulated dismissal with prejudice pursuant to settlement does not constitute a court finding of non-infringement or patent invalidity. No merits ruling was issued. The patents remain in force and enforceable against third parties. The dismissal simply bars Soluble Technologies from re-suing Dyla on these specific claims.
Retained jurisdiction to enforce a settlement agreement is standard where the deal contains ongoing obligations — such as royalty payments, licensing terms, product modification requirements, or audit rights. It allows either party to return to court if the other fails to comply with settlement terms, without needing to file a new lawsuit.
Each party bearing its own attorneys’ fees and costs is consistent with a negotiated compromise where neither side achieved a decisive litigation advantage. It does not necessarily indicate an even outcome — one party may have agreed to licensing terms or product changes that offset the lack of fee recovery. The underlying financial terms of the settlement remain confidential.
PatSnap Eureka searches patents and litigation data to answer instantly.