Amazentis SA v. Codeage LLC

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Amazentis SA (Switzerland) and Timeline Longevity, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: Codeage LLC (Delaware)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Ashby & Geddes
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-00249, D. Del., 07/07/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper in the District of Delaware as Defendant Codeage LLC is a Delaware corporation and thus resides in the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiffs allege that Defendant's urolithin A dietary supplements infringe three patents covering methods of using and compositions of urolithin A to enhance biological functions like autophagy and mitochondrial performance.
• Technical Context: The technology concerns the direct administration of synthesized urolithin A, a metabolite that many humans cannot efficiently produce naturally from dietary precursors, to achieve consistent therapeutic effects related to cellular health and aging.
• Key Procedural History: The complaint states that Plaintiff Amazentis provided Defendant Codeage with notice of alleged infringement of the '373 Patent via a letter in March 2023. The initial complaint in the action was filed in March 2026.

Case Timeline

Date	Event
2010-12-23	'943 Patent Priority Date
2012-06-27	'373 and '358 Patents Priority Date
2021-06-01	U.S. Patent No. 11,020,373 Issues
2023-02-XX	Defendant issues press release for accused product
2023-03-08	Plaintiff sends infringement notice letter to Defendant re: '373 Patent
2024-08-23	Plaintiff sends follow-up letter to Defendant's counsel
2025-05-27	U.S. Patent No. 12,310,943 Issues
2026-02-10	U.S. Patent No. 12,544,358 Issues
2026-03-XX	Initial Complaint Filed
2026-07-07	First Amended Complaint Filing Date

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

U.S. Patent No. 11,020,373 - "Enhancing Autophagy Or Increasing Longevity By Administration Of Urolithins Or Precursors Thereof", Issued June 1, 2021

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patents-in-suit explain that urolithin A, a compound with health benefits, is produced in the human gut by microflora metabolizing precursors like ellagitannins found in certain foods Compl. ¶14 However, this natural production is highly inconsistent across the population due to individual variations in gut microbiota, with a significant portion of people being "low-producers" or "non-producers" who cannot reliably achieve beneficial levels through diet alone (Compl. ¶¶17; Compl. ¶20; Compl. ¶24).
• The Patented Solution: The invention bypasses this biological variability by directly administering synthesized urolithin A in defined, repeatable oral doses Compl. ¶25 Compl. ¶28 This approach ensures that an individual receives a known, fixed quantity of urolithin A, allowing them to achieve plasma levels unattainable through normal dietary consumption and thereby obtain the claimed health benefits, such as increased autophagy (Compl. ¶¶30; Compl. ¶42). The '373 Patent notes that because not all humans metabolize ellagitannins to the same extent, direct administration is a solution to this naturally occurring limitation US11020373B2, col. 147:64-col. 148:4
• Technical Importance: This method provided the first reliable means for the general population, regardless of their gut microbiome composition, to achieve therapeutic levels of urolithin A.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, and 18 Compl. ¶64
• Independent Claim 1 recites:
  • A method of increasing autophagy,
  • comprising the step of orally administering to a healthy human in need thereof an effective amount of urolithin A, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof,
  • wherein the healthy human is not suffering from cancer or predisposed to developing cancer,
  • autophagy in the healthy human is increased,
  • and the effective amount is about 70 mg to about 1050 mg.

U.S. Patent No. 12,310,943 - "Compositions and Methods for Improving Mitochondrial Function and Treating Neurodegenerative Diseases and Cognitive Disorders", Issued May 27, 2025

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent background describes that declining mitochondrial energy production and corresponding oxidative stress play a significant role in degenerative diseases and aging US 10,485,782 B2, col. 1:12-19
• The Patented Solution: The invention involves administering urolithins or their precursors to improve or maintain mitochondrial function, muscle performance, and manage metabolic disorders like obesity US10485782B2, abstract The claims are directed to methods of achieving these benefits by administering specific daily dosage ranges of a urolithin (Compl. ¶¶68; Compl. ¶72).
• Technical Importance: The invention provides a method for using specific dosages of urolithins to directly target and improve mitochondrial and muscle function, which can decline with age or disease.

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 2, along with numerous dependent claims (Compl. ¶¶68; Compl. ¶70; Compl. ¶72; Compl. ¶75).
• Independent Claim 1 recites:
  • A method of enhancing muscle performance,
  • comprising administering to a mammal in need thereof an effective amount of a urolithin,
  • thereby increasing muscle performance;
  • wherein the effective amount of the urolithin is 300-500 mg/day, 450-750 mg/day, or 600-1000 mg/day.
• Independent Claim 2 recites:
  • A method of increasing or maintaining mitochondrial function,
  • comprising administering to a mammal in need thereof an effective amount of a urolithin,
  • thereby increasing or maintaining mitochondrial function;
  • wherein the effective amount of the urolithin is 300-500 mg/day, 450-750 mg/day, or 600-1000 mg/day.

U.S. Patent No. 12,544,358 - "Enhancing Autophagy or Increasing Longevity by Administration of Urolithins", Issued February 10, 2026

Technology Synopsis

The patent is directed to compositions that combine urolithin A with a second ingredient, such as resveratrol or coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10) Compl. ¶50 This combination is claimed to improve or increase mitochondrial function, particularly through mitophagy, to enhance longevity (Compl. ¶¶51; Compl. ¶83).

Asserted Claims

The complaint asserts independent claim 1 and dependent claims 2, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 15, 16, 17, and 19 Compl. ¶¶84-85

Accused Features

The accused product is alleged to be a composition that includes urolithin A, resveratrol, and CoQ10, directly infringing the composition claims (Compl. ¶¶60; Compl. ¶80).

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Codeage's "Liposomal Urolithin A" supplement product Compl. p. 19

Functionality and Market Context

The accused product is a dietary supplement sold in capsules for oral administration Compl. ¶54 The product's "Supplement Facts" label, depicted in the complaint, states that a two-capsule serving contains 500 mg of urolithin A, 150 mg of trans-resveratrol, and 60 mg of coenzyme Q10 Compl. p. 22 The product is marketed through various online and brick-and-mortar channels with statements that it is intended "to help support healthy aging and mitochondrial function" and "support mitophagy-the recycling of damaged mitochondria" (Compl. ¶53; Compl. ¶54; Compl. ¶55; Compl. ¶56). A screenshot from the Walgreens.com product page shows the product marketed to support "healthy aging and mitochondrial function" Compl. p. 19

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

'373 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A method of increasing autophagy,	Defendant's product is marketed to "support mitophagy," a form of autophagy, and to "enhance cellular renewal," allegedly inducing customers to use the product for this purpose. A screenshot from vitaminscripts.com explicitly links the product to mitophagy Compl. p. 20	¶63; ¶56	col. 147:1-8
comprising the step of orally administering to a healthy human in need thereof an effective amount of urolithin A, or a pharmaceutically acceptable salt thereof,	The accused product is a capsule for oral administration containing urolithin A, marketed to the general public, who are alleged to be "healthy humans."	¶62; ¶54	col. 148:20-22
wherein the healthy human is not suffering from cancer or predisposed to developing cancer,	The complaint alleges the product is marketed to "healthy" individuals for "healthy aging" support, a population that is presumptively not suffering from cancer.	¶56; ¶62	col. 148:16-18
autophagy in the healthy human is increased,	This is the asserted result of the method. The complaint alleges infringement is induced by Defendant's promotional statements that the product increases autophagy.	¶63	col. 148:18-20
and the effective amount is about 70 mg to about 1050 mg.	The accused product's label specifies a 500 mg serving of urolithin A, which falls within the claimed dosage range Compl. p. 22	¶62; ¶60	col. 148:20-22

'943 Patent Infringement Allegations

Claim Element (from Independent Claim 1)	Alleged Infringing Functionality	Complaint Citation	Patent Citation
A method of enhancing muscle performance,	Defendant's product is marketed with claims of improving "muscle function" and aiding "muscle strengthening," and customer reviews cited in the complaint mention these benefits.	¶69; p. 22	col. 51:56-62
comprising administering to a mammal in need thereof an effective amount of a urolithin,	The product is sold to human consumers (mammals) and contains urolithin A.	¶69; ¶54	col. 51:56-62
thereby increasing muscle performance;	This is the asserted result of the method. Infringement is alleged to be induced by Defendant's marketing claims regarding muscle benefits.	¶69	col. 51:56-62
wherein the effective amount of the urolithin is 300-500 mg/day, 450-750 mg/day, or 600-1000 mg/day.	The product label recommends a daily dosage of two capsules, which provides 500 mg/day of urolithin A, falling within the claimed ranges (Compl. p. 28).	¶68; ¶71	col. 51:56-62

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The infringement theory for the method claims in the '373 and '943 patents relies on inducement, based on consumers following the defendant's marketing and instructions. A central question for the court will be whether marketing statements about "supporting" a biological function are sufficient to demonstrate the specific intent required to induce infringement of claims that require an actual physiological result (e.g., "increasing autophagy," "enhancing muscle performance").
• Technical Questions: A key evidentiary issue will be whether the administration of the accused product at the 500 mg/day dosage actually causes the functional outcomes required by the method claims in users. The complaint relies on the defendant's marketing claims and customer reviews, but a factual dispute may arise over the actual physiological effects of the product.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

• The Term: "healthy human" ('373 Patent, claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the patient population for the claimed method. Its construction is critical because the defendant may argue that its customers do not meet the definition of "healthy" as used in the patent, or that the plaintiff cannot prove the health status of the entire consumer base, potentially limiting the scope of infringement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent specification describes the problem of urolithin production variability as applying to the general population, suggesting "healthy" may be intended to encompass typical adults not suffering from acute or specifically excluded diseases (Compl. ¶¶20; Compl. ¶24).
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The patent family relies on clinical studies with specific inclusion and exclusion criteria to demonstrate the invention (Compl. ¶¶24; Compl. ¶26; Compl. ¶34; Compl. ¶36). A party could argue that "healthy human" should be limited to a population matching these clinical trial subjects, creating a higher burden of proof for infringement.

• The Term: "enhancing muscle performance" ('943 Patent, claim 1)

• Context and Importance: This term defines the functional result of the claimed method. The infringement analysis will turn on whether the accused product is proven to achieve this outcome. Practitioners may focus on this term because its definition-whether subjective or requiring objective measurement-will determine the type of evidence needed to prove infringement.

• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:

  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification's abstract refers broadly to improving or maintaining "muscle performance" (US 10,485,782 B2, abstract). A party could argue this encompasses subjective user experiences, such as those cited from customer reviews in the complaint Compl. p. 22
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description of the ''782 patent (related to the '943 patent) includes data from animal studies measuring specific metrics like muscle endurance on a treadmill US 10,485,782 B2, FIG. 49 A party may argue that "enhancing muscle performance" must be interpreted in light of these examples, requiring an objectively measurable improvement in a specific physical capacity.

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint's primary theory is indirect infringement. It alleges inducement by citing Defendant's marketing materials, product labels, and website content, which allegedly instruct and encourage consumers to use the product for the patented purposes of increasing autophagy and enhancing muscle and mitochondrial function (Compl. ¶¶66; Compl. ¶77; Compl. ¶88). Contributory infringement is also alleged, on the basis that the product is not a staple article of commerce and is especially adapted for an infringing use (Compl. ¶¶67; Compl. ¶78; Compl. ¶89).
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on both pre-suit and post-suit knowledge. It asserts that Defendant had pre-suit knowledge of the '373 Patent since at least March 2023 via a direct notice letter from Amazentis (Compl. ¶¶92; Compl. ¶94). Knowledge of all three Patents-in-Suit is also alleged based on the filing of the initial complaint in March 2026 and this amended complaint Compl. ¶91 Compl. ¶99

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

• A core issue will be one of inducement: Can Plaintiffs prove that Codeage's marketing statements about "supporting" functions like "mitophagy" and "mitochondrial health" demonstrate the specific intent required to induce consumers to perform the patented methods, which claim concrete outcomes such as "increasing autophagy" and "enhancing muscle performance"?
• A second central question will be one of claim scope: How will the court construe the term "in need thereof" as it appears in the method claims of the '943 patent? The case may turn on whether a healthy individual seeking general wellness and aging support is considered a "mammal in need thereof," or if the term requires a pre-existing deficiency in muscle or mitochondrial function.
• A key evidentiary question will be one of functional proof: For the method claims, what level of evidence will be required to prove that the accused product actually achieves the claimed functional results (e.g., "increasing muscle performance") in consumers, and can Plaintiffs meet this burden beyond relying on Defendant's own marketing materials?