Litigation

INNERCAP Technologies, Inc. v. Walmart Inc.

stayed

1:26-cv-00488

Filed
2026-04-27

Patents at issue (2)

9539216
7670612

Defendants (1)

Summary

InnerCap Technologies filed a patent infringement action against [Walmart Inc.](/litigations/by-defendant/Walmart%20Inc.) under 35 U.S.C. § 271. The docket's Report to the Commissioner identified US 7,670,612 B2, not US 9,539,216 B2. On 8/24/2026 the case was stayed pending InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Natals, Inc. and InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Nouri Life, Inc.

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 across the sources you named.

Let me dig deeper on the patents, the parallel litigation, and the stay.

Now let me check the broader assertion campaign and any PTAB proceedings.

Key legal developments & outcome

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

I'll research this case systematically. Let me start with several searches.

I have a good foundation. Let me dig deeper into the docket, related cases, and PTAB proceedings.

Key Legal Developments — INNERCAP Technologies, Inc. v. Walmart Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00488-JLH (D. Del.)

Sourcing note up front: I was unable to pull the live PACER docket directly. The chronology below is reconstructed from third‑party docket aggregators and reporting — PacerMonitor, the "Ex Parte" AI case pages, Justia Dockets, the GAEFlex/DocketUpdate mirror, and Patexia — plus industry reporting (Retail Patent Litigation Report, Lexology / Illinois Lawyer Now). Where a fact comes only from an aggregator, I say so. No opinion, verdict, Markman order, or JPML/PTAB decision has issued in this case; anything to the contrary would be fabricated. No IPR or PGR petition on either asserted patent surfaced in my searches, but I flag that as an unresolved search limitation rather than a verified negative.

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

2026-04-27 — Complaint filed. InnerCap Technologies, Inc. filed a 35 U.S.C. § 271 patent infringement action against Walmart Inc. in the District of Delaware, Wilmington Division. Nature of suit 830 (Patent); Jury demand by Plaintiff. Case flags: PATENT. Sources: PacerMonitor case 64372817; GAEFlex/DocketUpdate docket mirror; Justia Dockets.

2026-04-29 — Assignment. Case assigned to Judge Jennifer L. Hall; documents to bear the initials "JLH" (consistent with the later citations "26-00823 JLH" and "26-00903 JLH" to the same judge).

2026-04-28 — Service. Summons returned executed; Walmart served 2026-04-28, answer originally due 2026-05-19 (D.I. 6).

Accused products. Per the complaint analysis (Ex Parte, D.I. 1 analysis), InnerCap accuses Walmart's "Ritual" and "Daily Nouri" capsule‑in‑capsule supplement lines, specifically naming "Ritual Essentials Prenatal Multivitamins" and "Daily Nouri Digestive Support Probiotic." The theory is the classic nested‑capsule structure: an oil‑based outer chamber (e.g., omega‑3 DHA in Ritual; ahiflower/plant‑based omega oil in Nouri) with a solid, time‑delayed inner capsule (vitamins; probiotics).

Asserted patent and claim. The complaint's infringement theory centers on U.S. Patent No. 7,670,612 ("Multi‑phase, multi‑compartment capsular delivery apparatus and methods for using same"), issued 2010‑03‑02, inventor Fred H. Miller, assignee InnerCap Technologies, Inc. Independent claim 33 is asserted as representative, with InnerCap reserving the right to assert additional claims later (Compl. ¶¶ 24–25 in the Walmart case; the parallel Nouri Life complaint reserved at least claims 5, 6, 9, 10, 24, and 65). Sources: Ex Parte complaint analyses; USPTO patent document US007670612B2.

Patent discrepancy to flag. The case metadata lists US 9,539,216 alongside the '612 patent, but the docket's Report to the Commissioner of Patents (the AO‑120 filing) identified only US 7,670,612 — not the '216 patent. The '216 patent is a later, same‑family InnerCap patent (same title, inventor Fred H. Miller, priority 2002‑04‑10, granted 2017‑01‑10, filed 2016‑01‑25) and cites the '612 patent. The most defensible reading of the current record is that the '612 patent is the patent actually asserted and reported, with the '216 patent either listed in the case metadata as a portfolio/related patent or reserved for later assertion. Treat the '216 patent's "at issue" status as unconfirmed.

No answer or counterclaims on the merits in the Walmart case. Walmart's responsive deadline was extended three times, and the case was stayed before any answer, counterclaim, or invalidity contention was filed:

  • 2026-05-13 — Walmart Rule 7.1 disclosure (no parent/affiliate) and first stipulation to extend response to 2026-07-06.
  • 2026-07-16 — second extension, response to 2026-08-07.
  • 2026-08-06 — third extension, response to 2026-08-21 (D.I. 16–17).
  • Sources: GAEFlex/DocketUpdate docket text; PacerMonitor.

Counsel of record:

  • Plaintiff InnerCap: Farnan LLP (Brian E. Farnan, Michael J. Farnan) as Delaware counsel [PacerMonitor lists the Farnan firm among InnerCap's representatives]; pro hac vice — Cristofer I. Leffler, Michael C. Saunders II, Katherine Bentfield (admitted 2026-05-04, D.I. 7–8) and Aden M. Allen (admitted 2026-05-14, D.I. 11–12).
  • Defendant Walmart: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP (Bindu Ann George Palapura) as Delaware counsel; pro hac vice — Nathan R. Speed, Libbie A. DiMarco, Scott A. McKeown, and Cassandra M. Baloga of Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. (motion D.I. 14, fees paid 2026-06-30, SO ORDERED 2026‑07‑01). Sources: PacerMonitor; GAEFlex/DocketUpdate.

2. Pre‑trial Motions of Substance

No motion to dismiss, transfer, or summary judgment was filed. The one substantive motion event is the stay:

  • 2026-08-21 — Walmart filed a Stipulation to Stay (D.I. 18) (a stipulated request, not a contested motion to stay pending IPR).
  • 2026-08-24 — Order. "SO ORDERED, re 18 Stipulation and Order to Stay pending completion of InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Natals, Inc., 26‑00823 JLH and InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Nouri Life, Inc., 26‑00903 JLH. (*Case stayed). Signed by Judge Jennifer L. Hall on 8/24/2026" (D.I. 19). Source: PacerMonitor / GAEFlex docket.

Strategic read. This is not an IPR‑based stay under § 318(a)(1). It is a judicial‑coordination stay: Walmart, a downstream retailer, agreed to press "pause" while the same judge resolves InnerCap's parallel suits against the upstream supplier/brand defendants. The case was stayed roughly four months after filing, well before any scheduling order, Markman, or discovery — so the litigation's substantive phase has not begun.

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

None. The case was stayed before a scheduling order was entered, so no Markman briefing, hearing, or order occurred. There is no claim‑construction record for this docket.

4. Discovery Milestones

No merits discovery milestones occurred. The docket reflects only case‑management and pro hac vice activity (D.I. 7–17) plus the stay (D.I. 18–19). No Rule 26(f) conference, discovery plan, protective order, or scheduling order appears on the record. The 2026-08-24 stay halted the case before the Rule 16 conference stage. Source: aggregator docket listings.

5. Trial, Verdict, Post‑trial Motions

None. No trial date was set, no verdict returned, and no JMOL/new‑trial/fee motions exist. The case never reached trial or dispositive motion practice.

6. Final Disposition / Present Posture

Present posture: STAYED (as of 2026-08-24), and still stayed as of today, 2026-10-12. No judgment, dismissal, or appeal. The docket's last substantive entry in this case is the stay order (D.I. 19); the docket was last updated on the aggregators around 2026-09-01. Source: PacerMonitor case 64372817.

The related cases driving the stay

(a) InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Nouri Life, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00903-JLH (D. Del.). Filed 2026-07-24; asserts the same '612 patent against Nouri's capsule‑in‑capsule probiotic products (e.g., Hormone Balance Probiotic, Digestive Support Probiotic; Nouri Digestive Support Probiotic as representative). Key events:

  • 2026-09-01 — InnerCap served a Request to the Clerk to Enter Default under FRCP 55(a) with a supporting declaration (D.I. 17).
  • 2026-09-23 — Nouri Life filed its Answer with jury demand (D.I. 19).
  • 2026-09-28 — The Court denied InnerCap's default request in light of the Answer, and entered an oral order requiring the parties, within 30 days, to jointly submit (i) a proposed scheduling order consistent with Judge Hall's "Rule 16 Scheduling Order — Patent" and (ii) a three‑page letter describing the case and any scheduling disputes (D.I. 20–21). Source: PacerMonitor case 65882753.

(b) InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Natals, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00823-JLH (D. Del.). Filed 2026-07-08 by InnerCap against Natals, Inc. (the Ritual brand entity), on the '612 patent. Counsel includes Farnan LLP for InnerCap; the aggregators show a Natals‑side Delaware representative. Source: PacerMonitor case 65590158; Patexia docket index.

(c) Natals, Inc. d/b/a Ritual v. InnerCap Technologies, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-05696 (C.D. Cal.). A declaratory‑judgment action (28 U.S.C. § 2201) filed by Natals/Ritual on 2026-05-27 against InnerCap — a first‑strike DJ race (before InnerCap's D. Del. Natals suit). It was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on 2026-08-27 (D.I. 14), effectively yielding to the Delaware forum. Source: PacerMonitor case 64868909.

**(d) Inner

Plaintiff representatives

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

I'll research this. Let me start with several targeted searches.

Let me dig into the docket entries and the attorneys identified.

Now let me confirm the Delaware local counsel, the Folio Law Group roster, and the second PHV motion.

Counsel of Record for Plaintiff INNERCAP Technologies, Inc.

Bottom line

InnerCap is represented by a two-tier team: a national patent-litigation boutique, Folio Law Group PLLC, appearing pro hac vice, and Farnan LLP of Wilmington as Delaware local counsel (which is doing the ECF filing, per D. Del. Local Rule 83.5(d)). All named plaintiff-side attorneys appear on the docket by mid-2026; the case has been stayed since 8/24/2026, so no merits briefing has occurred.

The attorneys

# Name Role Firm / office Note
1 Cristofer I. ("Cris") Leffler Lead / national counsel (PHV) Folio Law Group PLLC — Seattle, WA (firm founder & managing partner) 25+ yrs; ex-Dorsey & Whitney, K&L Gates, and Director of IP Litigation at Intellectual Ventures; tried a three-week patent case to a multi-million-dollar counterclaim verdict; admitted CA, WA, 5th Cir., Fed. Cir.
2 Michael C. Saunders II PHV attorney Folio Law Group PLLC Moved for PHV admission jointly with Leffler and Bentfield (D.I. 7); no independent public profile I could verify — treat as low-confidence.
3 Katherine Bentfield PHV attorney Folio Law Group PLLC Same D.I. 7 motion; no independently verified practice bio found.
4 Aden M. Allen PHV attorney Folio Law Group PLLC (bio lists Austin, TX practice; firm is Seattle-based) ~18 yrs patent litigation; former Wilson Sonsini (Austin), Larson Newman, Bunsow De Mory; MIT M.E. '02, Columbia J.D. '08; ex-chair AIPLA Patent Litigation Committee; ex-Applied Materials engineer. Admitted TX, NY, CA, Fed. Cir., USPTO.
5 Palani P. Rathinasamy PHV attorney (see caveat) Folio Law Group PLLC (inferred) Confirmed as InnerCap's counsel of record in the parallel Natals v. InnerCap action (signed InnerCap's waiver of service), and listed among InnerCap's PHV attorneys in InnerCap v. Nouri Life (D. Del. 1:26-cv-00903). Not confirmed by name on the Walmart docket.
6 Brian E. Farnan (Bar No. 4089) Delaware local counsel / lead Delaware attorney Farnan LLP — 919 N. Market St., 12th Fl., Wilmington, DE 19801 Very high-volume D. Del. patent litigator (e.g., eBuddy v. LinkedIn, Inventergy v. Apple, 10x Genomics v. NanoString, Intellectual Ventures); routinely designated "LEAD ATTORNEY" on Delaware dockets.
7 Michael J. Farnan (Bar No. 5165) Delaware local counsel Farnan LLP — same Wilmington address Brian Farnan's partner; same practice profile. Paid the D.I. 7 PHV fee, filed the D.I. 11 motion for Aden Allen, and paid the D.I. 14 PHV fee — i.e., the Farnan firm is acting as the filing/registered Delaware counsel.

No in-house InnerCap attorney has appeared on this docket in the materials I could retrieve.

Docket support

  • D.I. 1 (4/27/2026) — Complaint for patent infringement with jury demand, filed by INNERCAP Technologies, Inc. (filing fee receipt ADEDC-4957512).
  • D.I. 7 (5/4/2026) — MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Cristofer I. Leffler, Michael Saunders, and Katherine Bentfield, filed by InnerCap; granted by Judge Jennifer L. Hall 5/4/2026; PHV fee receipt ADEDC-4962278 (payer: Farnan, Michael).
  • 5/5/2026 — PHV Attorneys Leffler, Saunders & Bentfield added for electronic noticing.
  • D.I. 11 (5/14/2026) — MOTION for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Attorney Aden Allen, filed by InnerCap; $50 fee, receipt ADEDC-4970013 (payer: Farnan, Brian); granted by Judge Hall 5/14/2026; PHV notice entry 5/15/2026.
  • D.I. 14 (6/30/2026) — Appear Pro Hac Vice, accompanied by a "District Court Pro Hac Vice Fee – 04 Attorneys" credit-card payment (suggesting a further four PHV admissions that round, plausibly including Rathinasamy, but the entry text I retrieved does not name them).
  • D.I. 9 / D.I. 13 — stipulations extending Walmart's response deadline (ultimately to 7/6/2026); D.I. 10 — Walmart's Rule 7.1 disclosure (Walmart side: Bindu Palapura, appearing for defendant).
  • 8/24/2026 — case stayed pending InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Natals, Inc. and InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Nouri Life, Inc.

Consistent with this structure, InnerCap appears as a repeat filer using Folio Law Group as national counsel plus district-specific local counsel — e.g., in InnerCap v. Target (D. Minn. 0:26-cv-02427), where Folio's Leffler appears for InnerCap and a Minnesota firm is listed as local counsel in the May 2026 Retail Patent Litigation Report.

Sourcing caveats (please read before relying)

  1. This docket is not a PACER pull. The docket detail above comes from PACER Monitor's case page for INNERCAP Technologies, Inc. v. Walmart Inc., 1:26-cv-00488, and a docket-mirror site (gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com). I could not retrieve the underlying CM/ECF docket sheet or the complaint PDF itself, so I cannot confirm who signed the complaint or the exact capacity designations ("lead" vs. "of counsel") the parties themselves assigned.
  2. Rathinasamy's appearance in this case is inferred, not confirmed. Her/his role is documented in the two related InnerCap matters, and the unnamed "04 Attorneys" PHV fee at D.I. 14 is suggestive — but until the D.I. 14 motion text is read, treat #5 as unverified for Walmart.
  3. Saunders and Bentfield have no verifiable public bios in my searches; I have not invented titles or experience for them.
  4. Office locations: Folio Law Group is Seattle-based (foliolaw.com), but Leffler is admitted in CA/WA and Allen's public profiles place him in Austin, TX. I did not confirm the firm's exact street address or each attorney's duty station.
  5. Nothing in the plaintiff's representation appears sealed — the appearances and PHV motions are public docket entries. The stay, however, means no current merits activity from this team.

Defendant representatives

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

I'll search for docket and counsel information on this case.

The docket reveals a key lead — Bindu Palapura (Delaware local counsel) filed Walmart's Rule 7.1 statement, and there's a 6/30/2026 pro hac vice entry for four attorneys. Let me dig deeper.

Strong results. Defendant Walmart is represented by Potter Anderson (local) and Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks (pro hac vice). Let me verify the individual attorneys' roles and experience.

Counsel of Record for Defendant Walmart Inc.

Case: INNERCAP Technologies, Inc. v. Walmart Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00488-JLH (D. Del.), Judge Jennifer L. Hall

Walmart's defense is staffed by a two-firm structure typical of Delaware patent litigation: a Delaware local counsel firm handling in-court filings and CM/ECF obligations under D. Del. Local Rule 83.5(d), and an out-of-town IP boutique appearing pro hac vice as substantive/lead counsel.

Attorneys identified from the docket

Name Role Firm / Office Notes
Bindu Ann George Palapura Delaware / local counsel (counsel of record on CM/ECF) Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, 1313 N. Market St., Hercules Plaza, 6th Fl., Wilmington, DE Partner; registered U.S. patent attorney (USPTO, 2012). Chambers USA–ranked IP litigator. Representative patent matters include defending Apple in Evolved Wireless (LTE patents), AngioDynamics in Bard Peripheral Vascular, Intel in AVM Technologies, and Delaware-local roles in IBM v. Groupon and Par Pharm. v. Eagle Pharm.
Nathan R. Speed Pro hac vice (out-of-state counsel) Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. Appeared via D.I. 14 (granted 7/1/2026). Individual bio not verified.
Scott A. McKeown Pro hac vice (out-of-state counsel) Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. Appeared via D.I. 14. Widely known in PTAB/post-grant practice circles; individual bio not independently verified in this search.
Libbie A. DiMarco (also docketed as "Elizabeth A. DiMarco") Pro hac vice (out-of-state counsel) Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. Appeared via D.I. 14. Same individual — "Libbie" is the form used in the PHV motion; the ECF noticing entry spells it "Elizabeth A."
Cassandra M. Baloga Pro hac vice (out-of-state counsel) Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C. Appeared via D.I. 14. Individual bio not verified.

Docket grounding

  • D.I. 9 (5/13/2026) – Stipulation to extend time to respond, filed by Walmart (Palapura). (D.I. 13 (6/29/2026) extended the response date to 7/20/2026.)
  • D.I. 10 (5/13/2026) – Rule 7.1 Disclosure Statement filed by Walmart Inc. (signed/filed by Palapura) — the first affirmative defense-side filing, confirming Potter Anderson as Delaware counsel of record.
  • D.I. 11–12, 7–8 – These are plaintiff-side pro hac vice motions (Aden Allen; Cristofer I. Leffler, Michael Saunders, Katherine Bentfield of the Farnan firm). Listed only to distinguish them from Walmart's team.
  • D.I. 14 (filed 6/30/2026) – Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Nathan R. Speed, Libbie A. DiMarco, Scott A. McKeown, and Cassandra M. Baloga of Wolf, Greenfield & Sacks, P.C., filed by Walmart Inc.; granted by Judge Hall on 7/1/2026.
  • D.I. 15 (6/30/2026) – Pro hac vice fee ($200 for four attorneys; receipt ADEDC-5004677), paid by Palapura.
  • D.I. 18 (on/about 8/24/2026) – Stipulation to stay pending completion of InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Natals, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00823-JLH, and InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Nouri Life, Inc., filed by Walmart (Palapura); so ordered. Because of the stay, no answer or motion to dismiss appears on the docket as of the last docket update (9/1/2026).

Caveats and open items

  1. No appearance of in-house Walmart counsel appears on the public docket. Walmart's Rule 7.1 statement lists no parent/affiliate, and no Walmart legal-department attorney has entered an appearance.
  2. Firm office location for the Wolf Greenfield attorneys: I could not confirm the specific office (the firm is a Boston-headquartered IP boutique with additional offices) for each individual attorney within this search; the PHV papers list the firm generally. Treat office location as unverified.
  3. Individual bios for Speed, McKeown, DiMarco, and Baloga — I was unable to complete corroborating firm-website/credentials checks for these four within this session, and I will not guess at their prior case histories. What is firmly sourced is their identity, firm, and pro hac vice admission (D.I. 14, granted 7/1/2026). Scott McKeown is a name associated in the market with PTAB practice, but I flag that as unconfirmed here rather than asserting it.
  4. Lead vs. of counsel designation: The docket itself does not label a "lead counsel." Based on the filing pattern — Potter Anderson making the first and all subsequent defense filings and paying fees, with Wolf Greenfield appearing only by PHV motion — the practical read is that Palapura is Delaware/local counsel of record and the Wolf Greenfield team is substantive lead/out-of-state counsel, but this is an inference, not a docket designation.
  5. The case is stayed; if the stay is lifted, additional appearances (or substitutions) are possible and this list should be re-checked against the live docket.

Primary sources: PACER Monitor docket, INNERCAP Technologies, Inc. v. Walmart Inc., 1:26-cv-00488 (D. Del.), https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/64372817/INNERCAP_Technologies,_Inc_v_Walmart_Inc (docket updated 9/1/2026); D. Del. docket entries 9, 10, 13, 14, 15, 18; Potter Anderson & Corroon attorney profile for Bindu Ann Palapura, https://www.potteranderson.com.