Metronome LLC v. Global Products Group LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Metronome LLC (MN)
  • Defendant: Global Products Group LLC (NJ)
  • Plaintiff’s Counsel: Beusse Sanks, PLLC
• Case Identification: 8:25-cv-01841, M.D. Fla., 07/16/2025
• Venue Allegations: Venue is based on the Defendant having an established place of business in the Middle District of Florida and having allegedly committed acts of infringement within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant’s topical products infringe a patent related to formulations containing cannabis-derived botanical products for dermatological treatment.
• Technical Context: The technology involves topical formulations, such as creams and lotions, that deliver cannabinoids like tetrahydrocannabinol (THC) and cannabidiol (CBD) for therapeutic purposes.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint does not mention any prior litigation, licensing history, or other significant procedural events related to the patent-in-suit.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2013-09-26	'736 Patent Priority Date
2019-01-25	'736 Patent Application Filing Date
2020-05-19	'736 Patent Issue Date
2025-07-16	Complaint Filing Date

II. Technology and Patent(s)-in-Suit Analysis

U.S. Patent No. 10,653,736 - "Topical treatments incorporating cannabis sp. derived botanical drug product"

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent identifies a need for topical formulations that can effectively utilize the "diverse pharmacologic activities" of cannabis-derived compounds for treating dermatological diseases, distinct from their more widely known systemic or neuroprotective applications (ʼ736 Patent, col. 2:18-28).
• The Patented Solution: The invention is a topical formulation that combines a cannabis extract with specific active ingredients. As described in the specification, the solution involves creating a stable emulsion or base (e.g., a cream or lotion) that contains a cannabis-derived product with concentrations of THC and/or CBD exceeding levels commonly found in products like hemp oil, intended to provide "unexpected and highly beneficial treatments for a wide variety of diseases" (ʼ736 Patent, col. 2:23-28, col. 7:1-8).
• Technical Importance: The technology aimed to create therapeutic topical products by leveraging the anti-inflammatory and analgesic properties of cannabinoids at specific concentrations for targeted skin treatments, such as psoriasis (ʼ736 Patent, col. 2:41-46).

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts infringement of "one or more claims" of the '736 Patent, including "exemplary claims" identified in an external exhibit (Compl. ¶11). The patent contains one independent claim.
• Independent Claim 1:
  • A topical formulation, consisting essentially of:
  • an extract of Cannabis sativa or Cannabis indica;
  • at least one compound selected from the group consisting of menthol, resorcinol, and phenol, present in an amount of at least 0.1 wt %;
  • wherein a concentration of at least one component (THC or CBD) is greater than 2 milligrams per kilogram; and
  • wherein the formulation is obtained by dispersing the cannabis extract in a water-in-oil emulsion, an oil-in-water emulsion, a wax-in-oil base, or an oil-in-wax base.
• The complaint does not explicitly reserve the right to assert dependent claims.

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

• The complaint refers to "Exemplary Defendant Products" which it states are identified in charts incorporated as Exhibit 2 (Compl. ¶11). The specific products are not named within the body of the complaint.

Functionality and Market Context

• The complaint does not provide sufficient detail for analysis of the accused instrumentality's specific functionality or market context, other than to allege that the products "practice the technology claimed by the '736 Patent" (Compl. ¶16).

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint incorporates by reference claim charts from an external document (Exhibit 2) which was not provided with the filed complaint (Compl. ¶16, ¶17). Therefore, a detailed claim chart summary cannot be constructed from the provided documents. The complaint alleges that these external charts demonstrate that the "Exemplary Defendant Products" satisfy all elements of the asserted patent claims (Compl. ¶16).

No probative visual evidence provided in complaint.

• Identified Points of Contention:
  • Scope Questions: A primary question will be whether the accused products meet the "consisting essentially of" limitation. The presence of any additional active ingredients in the Defendant's products may raise a non-infringement argument if those ingredients are found to materially affect the formulation's basic characteristics as defined by the patent.
  • Technical Questions: The infringement analysis will likely depend on several factual questions:
    • What is the precise concentration of THC and/or CBD in the accused products, and does it exceed the claimed "greater than 2 milligrams per kilogram" threshold?
    • Do the accused products contain an "extract of Cannabis sativa or Cannabis indica" as claimed, or do they use cannabinoids from other sources (e.g., synthetic CBD)?
    • Do the accused products contain menthol, resorcinol, or phenol at a concentration of "at least 0.1 wt %"?
    • Is the formulation of the accused products one of the four specific base types required by the claim (e.g., a water-in-oil emulsion)?

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

The Term: "consisting essentially of"

• Context and Importance: This transitional phrase is highly restrictive and will be central to defining the scope of infringement. Practitioners may focus on this term because if the Defendant's products contain other active ingredients not listed in the claim, the case could turn on whether those extra ingredients "materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention" (ʼ736 Patent, col. 4:28-30).
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: A party might argue that the "basic and novel characteristics" are narrowly limited to the therapeutic effect from the cannabinoid, potentially allowing for other non-therapeutic additives like fragrances or standard preservatives.
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent explicitly defines the term as excluding "materials or stages that materially affect the basic and novel characteristics of the claimed invention" (ʼ736 Patent, col. 4:28-30). This suggests a narrow construction where any additional component with a therapeutic or significant chemical effect could place a product outside the claim scope.

The Term: "an extract of Cannabis sativa or Cannabis indica"

• Context and Importance: The definition of this term is critical for determining whether the source of the cannabinoids in the accused products falls within the claim. The dispute may center on whether lab-created (synthetic) cannabinoids or cannabinoids from other sources are covered.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification defines a "Cannabis derived biological drug product" broadly to include oils, powders, and various extracts prepared using different methods, which might support a broader reading of "extract" (ʼ736 Patent, col. 7:14-26).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The claim uses the specific word "extract," which could be construed narrowly to mean a substance derived directly from the plant material via a process like solvent extraction, as described in the specification (ʼ736 Patent, col. 6:31-46). This interpretation might exclude formulations made by adding purified, isolated, or synthetic cannabinoids to a base.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges inducement of infringement based on Defendant’s distribution of "product literature and website materials" that allegedly instruct end users on an infringing use of the products (Compl. ¶14). The knowledge element for this claim is alleged to have begun "At least since being served by this Complaint" (Compl. ¶15).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges Defendant has actual knowledge of infringement, but bases this knowledge on the service of the complaint itself (Compl. ¶13). This allegation appears to support a claim for post-filing willful infringement rather than pre-suit willfulness.

VII. Analyst’s Conclusion: Key Questions for the Case

• A core issue will be one of compositional scope: can the accused formulations, which may contain various ingredients common in commercial topical products, be shown to "consist essentially of" the specific combination of a natural cannabis extract and one of three other active agents (menthol, resorcinol, or phenol), as strictly defined by the claim language?
• A key evidentiary question will be one of sourcing and concentration: can the Plaintiff produce evidence to prove that the accused products not only meet the quantitative threshold of "greater than 2 milligrams per kilogram" of THC or CBD, but also that these cannabinoids originate from "an extract of Cannabis sativa or Cannabis indica," as opposed to a synthetic source not covered by the patent claims?