Litigation

InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Nouri Life, Inc.

open

1:26-cv-00903

Patents at issue (1)

9539216

Defendants (1)

Summary

Patent infringement action by InnerCap Technologies against Nouri Life, Inc., referenced in the Walmart stay order. The narrative does not confirm a filing date or specific patent-in-suit.

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case thoroughly using web search.

Let me dig deeper into the parties, related litigation, and the patents.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case across multiple sources.

Let me dig deeper into the docket, the patents, and any parallel PTAB proceedings.

Now let me look for the specific pleadings, counterclaims, and any PTAB proceedings.

InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Nouri Life, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00903-JLH (D. Del.)

Bottom line: This is a brand-new, still-open case — filed 2026-07-24, answered 2026-09-23, and as of today (2026-10-12) it has not yet received a scheduling order, let alone reached Markman, discovery, or trial. The most significant legal developments so far are (a) a failed default gambit by InnerCap, (b) the emergence of this case and InnerCap v. Natals as the two "lead" cases that are holding up InnerCap's parallel Walmart suit, and (c) a related declaratory-judgment action filed by Natals/Ritual in California. I found no PTAB proceedings on the asserted patents.

1. Pre-suit context: a coordinated enforcement campaign (April–May 2026)

Before (and overlapping with) this case, InnerCap launched a multi-front campaign asserting its multi-phase/multi-compartment capsule portfolio:

Case Court Filed Notes
InnerCap Techs., Inc. v. Walmart Inc., 1:26-cv-00488-JLH D. Del. (Hall, J.) 2026-04-27 Accuses "Ritual" and "Daily Nouri" capsule-in-capsule supplements; asserts '612 claim 33
InnerCap Techs., Inc. v. Target Corp., 0:26-cv-02427-NEB/DTS D. Minn. (Brasel, J.) 2026-04-30 Same accused product families
Natals, Inc. d/b/a Ritual v. InnerCap Techs., Inc., 2:26-cv-05696 C.D. Cal. ~2026

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the docket and counsel appearances for this case.

Key lead: InnerCap has parallel D. Del. cases with the same plaintiff-side team. Let me dig into the specific docket and counsel.

Now let me verify the out-of-state firms for the pro hac vice attorneys.

Bottom line

Counsel for plaintiff InnerCap Technologies, Inc. has appeared and is a two-tier team: Farnan LLP as Delaware local counsel, plus a five-attorney out-of-state group from Folio Law Group PLLC (Seattle) admitted pro hac vice by Judge Hall on August 28, 2026 (D.I. 8). No defense counsel has appeared — InnerCap has moved for entry of default against Nouri Life.

Sourcing caveat: PACER/D.I. documents are paywalled, so the below rests on PacerMonitor docket summaries (last updated 9/28/2026), the parallel D. Del. dockets, USPTO PTAB filings, State Bar records, and firm bios. The docket does not designate a formal "lead counsel," so the role labels are my inference from who signed what.

Delaware local counsel — Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE)

Attorney Role Firm / office Note
Brian E. Farnan (D. Del. Bar No. 4089) Delaware / local counsel — filed the PHV motion (D.I. 8), paid the PHV fees, and filed the Notice of Service of the Request to Clerk to Enter Default and the Rathinasamy declaration Farnan LLP, 919 N. Market St., 12th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801; bfarnan@farnanlaw.com Farnan LLP is a Delaware-only litigation boutique and one of the most frequently retained local counsel shops in D. Del. patent cases; Brian Farnan has appeared for both plaintiffs and defendants in high-volume patent matters (e.g., representing Intellectual Ventures in Viasat, Inc. v. Intellectual Ventures I LLC, C.A. No. 25-cv-56).
Michael J. Farnan (D. Del. Bar No. 5165) Delaware counsel — filed the case Status Report and the Walmart-case PHV fee payments; co-signatory on InnerCap's D. Del. filings Farnan LLP, same Wilmington address; mfarnan@farnanlaw.com Same boutique; regularly serves as Delaware counsel on patent and IP matters (e.g., Vacker v. Eleven Labs, Inc., C.A. No. 24-987).

Note: Local Rule 83.5(d) requires Delaware counsel to be the CM/ECF registered filers, which is why all InnerCap filings carry a Farnan signature.

Out-of-state counsel — Folio Law Group PLLC (Seattle, WA)

All five were added for electronic noticing as pro hac vice counsel for InnerCap in this case (D.I. 8, granted 8/28/2026; $250 PHV fee, receipt CDEDC-5053222).

Attorney Role Firm / office Note
Cristofer I. Leffler (CA SBN 208129; WA Bar 35020) Lead / trial counsel (most likely) — the senior Folio attorney on every InnerCap 2026 filing Folio Law Group PLLC, 1200 Westlake Ave. N., Ste. 809, Seattle, WA 98109; cris.leffler@foliolaw.com Founder/Managing Partner; 25+ years, 100+ IP matters; ex–Dorsey & Whitney, ex–K&L Gates, former Director of IP Litigation at Intellectual Ventures; PTAB, ITC, 5th and Fed. Cir. experience. Also appears for InnerCap in the Target (D. Minn.) and Walmart (D. Del.) suits.
Michael C. Saunders, II (CA SBN 270414) Pro hac vice counsel (substantive briefing) Folio Law Group PLLC, Seattle, WA (some filings list a Lake Forest Park, WA address) Folio patent litigator; appears with Leffler in DataSphere, LLC v. Equinix, Inc. (E.D. Tex.) and Netlist Inc. v. Monolithic Power Systems (E.D. Tex.) and in PTAB proceedings.
Palani P. Rathinasamy (USPTO Reg. No. 63,541) Pro hac vice counsel — signed the Declaration in support of InnerCap's Request for Entry of Default Judgment (D.I. 11) Folio Law Group PLLC, Seattle; palani@foliolaw.com Registered patent attorney; back-up counsel to Folio's David Schumann in Valve Corp. v. Immersion Corp., IPR2024-00477.
Aden M. Allen Pro hac vice counsel (motion filed in this case) Firm not confirmed in my sources — flagged, not inferred Earlier admitted PHV for InnerCap in the Walmart case (D.I. 11, granted 5/14/2026) ahead of Leffler/Saunders, suggesting he was brought in on an additional matter. I could not verify his firm affiliation from a reliable source.
Katherine Bentfield Pro hac vice counsel (motion filed in this case) Listed together with Leffler and Saunders on the identical PHV motions in the Walmart and Nouri Life cases, which is consistent with — but does not prove — a Folio Law Group affiliation. Treat as unverified. No independent firm confirmation found.

No in-house counsel for InnerCap appears on the docket.

Procedural posture that bears on the counsel picture

  • Filed 7/24/2026 (D.I. 1, complaint); assigned to Judge Jennifer L. Hall, who also has InnerCap's related D. Del. suits — InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Natals, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00823 (JLH) and INNERCAP Technologies, Inc. v. Walmart Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00488 (JLH). (Some aggregator pages still show "pending judge assignment"; the docket and the Walmart stay order confirm Judge Hall.)
  • Service: Nouri Life served 7/27/2026, answer due 8/17/2026.
  • No defendant appearance: InnerCap filed a Request for Default as to Nouri Life under FRCP 55(a) (D.I. 10), with a supporting declaration (D.I. 11) and a notice of service filed by Brian E. Farnan. A status report followed. Nouri Life's counsel of record, if any, is not reflected on the public docket.
  • Parallel litigation: Judge Hall stayed the Walmart case (D.I. 18, entered 8/24/2026) pending completion of the Natals and Nouri Life actions, making this case one of the lead vehicles in InnerCap's 2026 enforcement campaign. InnerCap has also sued Target Corp. (D. Minn. No. 0:26-cv-02427), where Leffler and Saunders again appear and Mark Bradford filed a notice of appearance — a different counsel set, so don't conflate it with this docket.

One flag for the case summary

The metadata lists the patent at issue as 9,539,216, while the complaint-analysis source for this docket describes the asserted patent as U.S. Patent No. 7,670,612 ("Multi-phase, multi-compartment capsular delivery apparatus," claim 33 as the primary asserted claim, with claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 24, and 65 reserved). These aren't the same patent. Some aggregator entries (e.g., the Target case page) do show '612 as the asserted patent. Before relying on either number, the complaint (D.I. 1) should be pulled directly from PACER to confirm whether InnerCap pleads '612, '216, or both.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research this case and its counsel. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Key docket details are emerging. Let me drill into the specific counsel and firms.

Counsel of Record — Defendant Nouri Life, Inc.

Case: InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Nouri Life, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00903-JLH (D. Del.), Judge Jennifer L. Hall
Complaint filed: July 24, 2026 | Answer filed: Sept. 23, 2026 (D.I. 19)

Defendant's counsel of record

Attorney Role Firm / Office Notes
Marc E. Hankin Lead / trial counsel (admitted pro hac vice) Hankin Patent Law, APC (now operating as HPL Intellectual Property Law), Los Angeles, CA Registered patent attorney (USPTO Reg. No. 38,908); 30+ years in IP litigation, patent prosecution, and PTAB/IPR practice; admitted in CA, NJ, and the Federal Circuit.
Andrew Peter DeMarco Local counsel (Delaware) Devlin Law Firm LLC, Wilmington, DE Delaware IP boutique. Filed the notice of appearance, the PHV motion for Mr. Hankin, and the Answer on behalf of Nouri Life.

Docket basis

  • D.I. 14 — "NOTICE of Appearance by Andrew Peter DeMarco on behalf of Nouri Life, Inc." (filed 09/01/2026) (PACER Monitor docket text)
  • D.I. 15 — "MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Marc Hankin — filed by Nouri Life, Inc." (09/01/2026)
  • D.I. 16 — PHV fee payment ($50, receipt ADEDC-5056139) for Marc Hankin (09/01/2026)
  • SO ORDERED granting the PHV motion, signed by Judge Hall on 09/02/2026
  • D.I. 18 — Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement ("No Parents or Affiliates Listed"), filed by Nouri Life (09/02/2026), after a clerk's deficiency notice
  • D.I. 19 — "ANSWER to 1 Complaint with Jury Demand by Nouri Life, Inc.. (DeMarco, Andrew)" (09/23/2026)

Source: PACER Monitor docket sheet for 1:26-cv-00903 (https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/65882753/InnerCap_Technologies,_Inc_v_Nouri_Life,_Inc).

Attorney profiles

Marc E. Hankin — lead counsel (PHV)
Founding and managing partner of Hankin Patent Law, APC, a Los Angeles IP boutique now identified in Chambers USA as HPL Intellectual Property Law (Los Angeles; previously at 12400 Wilshire Blvd., Ste. 1265). He is a registered patent practitioner and litigator handling patents, trademarks, copyrights, trade secrets, and PTAB/USPTO proceedings for both plaintiffs and defendants; practice spans mechanical, chemical, electrical, and life-sciences/nutraceutical matters. Reported results include a complete defense verdict invalidating the plaintiff's patents in a remote-presence-robot patent case, and summary judgment invalidating all five asserted patents in a medical-imaging-software case. He also served as defense counsel in Edge Systems LLC v. Image Microderm, Inc., No. 2:17-cv-08699 (C.D. Cal.), which ended in a 2019 consent judgment of willful infringement, and he was counsel in Acquisition Management, Inc. v. Retreaver, Inc., No. 2:19-cv-06814 (C.D. Cal.).
Sources: Chambers USA spotlight profile for HPL Intellectual Property Law (https://chambers.com/department/hpl-intellectual-property-law-intellectual-property-usa-spotlight-120:34:6174:1:22753054); Super Lawyers profile (https://profiles.superlawyers.com/california/los-angeles/lawyer/marc-e-hankin/b0264a2b-45b6-4334-9913-04ec29a44fde.html); court filings at storage.courtlistener.com.

Andrew Peter DeMarco — Delaware local counsel
Attorney at Devlin Law Firm LLC, a Wilmington, Delaware patent-litigation boutique that serves as Delaware counsel in District of Delaware IP cases. On this docket he is the only attorney who has entered a formal appearance for Nouri Life and is the filer of record on the Answer and the Rule 7.1 disclosure. Note: I was unable to retrieve a firm bio page confirming his bar admissions or a fuller case history within my search budget — treat that detail as unverified.

Things to flag

  1. No in-house counsel has appeared on the docket for Nouri Life. Only outside counsel (Hankin PHV, DeMarco local) are of record.
  2. Party/patent mismatch worth noting. The case metadata in my instructions lists U.S. Patent No. 9,539,216 as the patent-in-suit. Every public description of the complaint I located identifies the asserted patent as U.S. Pat. No. 7,670,612 ("Multi-phase, multi-compartment capsular delivery apparatus and methods for using same"), asserted at least at independent claim 33 against Nouri's capsule-in-capsule probiotic products (e.g., Digestive Support Probiotic). The '216 number may be an error in the metadata or an additional patent not yet confirmed — I could not verify a '216 assertion. Source: complaint analysis for 1:26-cv-00903 (https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ded/1:26-cv-00903/doc/analysis/1).
  3. Do not confuse with plaintiff's counsel. The PACER Monitor "Represented By" panel for this case mixes both sides. Appearing/likely for plaintiff InnerCap are Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan (Farnan LLP, Wilmington), Cristofer I. Leffler (Folio Law Group — also counsel in InnerCap v. Target), Michael C. Saunders II, Katherine Bentfield, and Palani P. Rathinasamy (who signed the Sept. 1, 2026 declaration supporting plaintiff's default request). Those individuals are not Nouri Life's counsel.
  4. Posture. Plaintiff moved for clerk's entry of default (D.I. 17, 09/01/2026); the Court denied it on 09/28/2026 (D.I. 20) because Nouri Life answered on 09/23/2026. The Court then issued an oral order (D.I. 21, 09/28/2026) requiring the parties to jointly submit a proposed scheduling order and a three-page status letter within 30 days.
  5. Related litigation. The parallel InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Walmart Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00488-JLH, was stayed on 08/24/2026 pending completion of this case and InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Natals, Inc. d/b/a Ritual, No. 1:26-cv-00823-JLH. A declaratory-judgment action, Natals, Inc. d/b/a Ritual v. InnerCap Technologies, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-05696 (C.D. Cal.), was also filed. None of these indicate the identity of Nouri Life's counsel beyond what appears above.

Verification limitation: PACER/firm-website pages behind paywalls (the actual ECF PDFs for D.I. 14, 15, and 19) were not retrievable in this session; the appearance, PHV, and Answer details above rest on PACER Monitor's docket text and the Court's SO ORDERED entry. If you need confirmation of the pro hac vice order's text or any additional appearances filed after 09/28/2026, a fresh PACER pull on the docket would be required.