Amazentis SA v. Axoa Co Ltd

I. Executive Summary and Procedural Information

• Parties & Counsel:
  • Plaintiff: Amazentis SA (Switzerland) and Timeline Longevity, Inc. (Delaware)
  • Defendant: The AXOA Company Ltd. d/b/a The Aeternum Company (England)
  • Plaintiff's Counsel: Foley Hoag LLP
• Case Identification: 1:26-cv-11146, D. Mass., 03/06/2026
• Venue Allegations: Venue is alleged to be proper because the Defendant is a foreign entity that has committed unlawful acts giving rise to this action within the district.
• Core Dispute: Plaintiff alleges that Defendant's Urolithin A dietary supplements infringe a patent related to methods of using urolithin to enhance muscle performance and improve mitochondrial function.
• Technical Context: The technology relates to the use of urolithins, which are metabolites of compounds found in foods like pomegranates, to improve cellular health by stimulating mitochondrial processes.
• Key Procedural History: The parties were previously involved in litigation (1:24-CV-11983-FDS) over different patents, which ended in a Stipulated Judgment and Injunction against Aeternum on February 2, 2025. The complaint alleges that Aeternum was notified of the patent-in-suit via a letter on December 1, 2025.

Case Timeline

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

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

The asserted patent is U.S. Patent No. 12,310,943 (the "'943 Patent"), which issued on May 27, 2025.

The Invention Explained

• Problem Addressed: The patent describes that declining mitochondrial energy production, increased oxidative stress, and apoptosis play a significant role in degenerative diseases and the aging process '943 Patent, col. 2:27-31 This can lead to reduced muscle performance and cognitive function '943 Patent, col. 3:1-15
• The Patented Solution: The invention provides methods of using urolithins-metabolites of compounds like ellagitannins found in pomegranates-to treat disorders related to inadequate mitochondrial activity '943 Patent, col. 3:16-24 '943 Patent, abstract The patent asserts that administering specific amounts of urolithins can enhance muscle performance and increase or maintain mitochondrial function '943 Patent, col. 8:12-19
• Technical Importance: The approach offers a method for improving cellular energy production and muscle health through dietary supplementation, addressing age-related declines that are difficult to counter naturally '943 Patent, col. 2:34-41 Compl. ¶15

Key Claims at a Glance

• The complaint asserts independent claims 1 and 2 '943 Patent, col. 80:1-12 Compl. ¶¶39-40
• Independent Claim 1: 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: 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.
• The complaint also asserts dependent claims 3-11, 16, 18-27, and 30-35 Compl. ¶48

III. The Accused Instrumentality

Product Identification

Defendant Aeternum's Urolithin A dietary supplement products, sold in capsule and powder forms Compl. ¶28

Functionality and Market Context

• The accused products are dietary supplements containing Urolithin A, offered for sale on Aeternum's website and other e-commerce platforms like Amazon.com and Etsy.com Compl. ¶26 The complaint includes a photograph of Aeternum's capsule and powder products, showing labels for 500mg capsules and powder with a 500mg scoop size Compl. p. 10
• The products are promoted as "Science-Backed" supplements that "enhance mitochondrial function," "improv[e] muscle strength," and "recharge your energy levels" Compl. ¶30 Aeternum allegedly advertises its products on social media platforms like Facebook, claiming benefits such as "boost[ing] mitochondrial strength" Compl. ¶35 The complaint provides a screenshot of a Facebook post from Aeternum's page, which claims Urolithin A "Supports healthy aging at the cellular level" and "Boosts mitochondrial strength" Compl. p. 14

IV. Analysis of Infringement Allegations

The complaint alleges that Aeternum's customers directly infringe claims 1 and 2 by consuming the Urolithin A products as instructed, and that Aeternum induces this infringement through its marketing and instructions Compl. ¶42 Compl. ¶49

'943 Patent Infringement Allegations

A similar analysis applies to independent claim 2, with the "increasing muscle performance" element replaced by "increasing or maintaining mitochondrial function." The complaint provides screenshots from a YouTube video and an Amazon ad where Aeternum allegedly promotes its products for "boosting energy" and "boost[ing] mitochondrial function" Compl. ¶36 Compl. ¶37

Identified Points of Contention

• Scope Questions: The case may explore whether Aeternum's marketing claims of "improving muscle strength by up to 12%" and "enhancing mitochondrial function" are sufficient to meet the method step limitations of "increasing muscle performance" and "increasing or maintaining mitochondrial function" as defined by the patent.
• Technical Questions: A key question for infringement will be whether the act of a consumer taking the supplement as directed constitutes performance of the claimed method. The analysis will depend on evidence that the accused products, when used as instructed, necessarily result in the claimed physiological outcomes.

V. Key Claim Terms for Construction

"enhancing muscle performance" (Claim 1) / "increasing or maintaining mitochondrial function" (Claim 2)

• Context and Importance: These terms define the purpose and outcome of the claimed method. The infringement case hinges on whether Aeternum instructs its customers to use the accused products for these specific purposes and whether the products achieve these results. Practitioners may focus on whether general marketing language about "strength," "stamina," and "energy" meets the specific functional language of the claims.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The patent abstract broadly describes using the compounds to "improve or maintain muscle performance" '943 Patent, abstract The specification also discusses improving "strength, speed, and endurance" as aspects of muscle performance, suggesting a non-limiting scope '943 Patent, col. 8:16-19
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The detailed description includes specific, quantitative results from animal studies, such as performance on a rotarod or treadmill, to demonstrate muscle performance '943 Patent, col. 75:1-30 '943 Patent, FIGS. 48-49 A defendant might argue that "enhancing muscle performance" requires achieving a specific, measurable outcome akin to those disclosed in the patent's examples, rather than just a consumer's subjective feeling of increased energy.

"effective amount"

• Context and Importance: This term is explicitly defined in the claims by specific dosage ranges (e.g., "300-500 mg/day"). The dispute will likely focus on a direct comparison between these claimed ranges and the dosages sold and recommended by Aeternum.
• Intrinsic Evidence for Interpretation:
  • Evidence for a Broader Interpretation: The specification discusses a wide range of potential dosages, from 0.1 to 150 mg/kg of body weight, which could translate to a wide range of daily amounts depending on the subject '943 Patent, col. 9:13-17
  • Evidence for a Narrower Interpretation: The independent claims themselves provide the narrowest and most explicit definition, tying the "effective amount" directly to the recited ranges of "300-500 mg/day, 450-750 mg/day, or 600-1000 mg/day" '943 Patent, col. 80:7-9 '943 Patent, col. 80:17-19 The complaint's allegations that Aeternum sells 500 mg and 1000 mg doses appear to be a direct attempt to map onto this specific claim language Compl. ¶28

VI. Other Allegations

• Indirect Infringement: The complaint alleges Aeternum induces infringement by selling and promoting its Urolithin A products with instructions and marketing materials that encourage customers to use them in an infringing manner Compl. ¶49 It also pleads contributory infringement on the same basis Compl. ¶50
• Willful Infringement: The complaint alleges willful infringement based on Aeternum's alleged knowledge of the '943 Patent since at least December 1, 2025, when Plaintiffs allegedly sent a letter identifying the patent and the infringing products Compl. ¶44 Compl. ¶45 Compl. ¶51

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

• A core issue will be one of causation and proof: can the plaintiffs demonstrate that customers who consume Aeternum's products as directed necessarily perform the claimed methods of "enhancing muscle performance" or "increasing or maintaining mitochondrial function"? The case may depend on whether Aeternum's marketing claims are sufficient evidence of inducement, or if plaintiffs must provide clinical evidence showing the accused products achieve the claimed physiological results.
• A second key issue will concern willfulness: given the prior litigation between the parties and the alleged notice letter of December 1, 2025, the court will have to determine whether Aeternum's continued sales after this date constitute the "egregious" conduct required for a finding of willful infringement and potential enhanced damages.