Natals, Inc. d/b/a Ritual v. InnerCap Technologies, Inc.

I'll research this case thoroughly using multiple searches.

Let me dig deeper into the parties, the Delaware parallel case, and the products at issue.

Let me verify the Delaware parallel case details, the IPR history, and the patent's expiration status.

Case Overview: Natals, Inc. d/b/a Ritual v. InnerCap Technologies, Inc., No. 2:26-cv-05696 (C.D. Cal.)

The parties. Natals, Inc., doing business as Ritual, is the plaintiff here. Ritual is a direct-to-consumer dietary-supplement brand whose products are marketed around a distinctive "nested" or capsule-in-capsule delivery format (usually described as an oil — e.g., omega‑3 DHA — in the outer capsule and dry vitamins/minerals in an inner compartment). Ritual is the operating company in this dispute and the defendant in the mirror action InnerCap brought against it in Delaware. InnerCap Technologies, Inc. is a small Florida drug-delivery/specialty-pharmaceutical company (headquartered in Tampa after earlier St. Petersburg operations; long-time CEO Fred H. Miller) that commercializes a multi-compartment capsule platform it markets as NOVACAP. Based on the sources retrieved, InnerCap appears to be a genuine technology/operating company rather than a classic litigation-only PAE — industry trade press from 2010 describes it announcing a grant

I'll research this case systematically across the docket, PTAB, and legal press.

Let me dig into the patent itself and the parallel Delaware action.

I'll research the counsel of record for the plaintiff in this case.

Let me research the plaintiff's counsel and their firm.

Let me dig deeper into the docket and the firm.

Plaintiff's Counsel of Record — Natals, Inc. d/b/a Ritual

Bottom line: Only one attorney has appeared for the plaintiff in C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:26-cv-05696, and she is the sole filer on every substantive entry to date. There is no separate local-counsel entry, no second firm, and no in-house counsel on the docket. The metadata's "open" status is worth flagging against the docket, which shows a voluntary dismissal without prejudice (see "Posture" below).

---

Counsel table

Docket basis for the entry of appearance: Eubanks is the only attorney whose ECF signature appears on the filings. She is credited with: the Complaint (Dkt. 1, where "Attorney Melissa N. Eubanks added to party Natals, Inc. d/b/a Ritual (pty:pla)"), the Civil Cover Sheet (Dkt. 2), the Summons Request (Dkt. 3), the Certification and Notice of Interested Parties (Dkt. 4), the Notice of Pendency of Other Actions (Dkt. 5), the AO-120 patent report (Dkt. 11), the stipulation extending defendant's answer deadline (Dkt. 13), and the Notice of Voluntary Dismissal (Dkt. 14).
Sources: PACER Monitor docket, C.D. Cal. 2:26-cv-05696; State Bar of California attorney profile #274491; Law360 attorney page.

---

What is not on the record

• No second plaintiff-side attorney has appeared. No VGC LLP colleague, no co-counsel, and no pro hac vice application is reflected in the docket data I could retrieve.
• No separate local counsel — unusual for a patent case in C.D. Cal. but explicable here because Eubanks is herself a California-licensed attorney with a local office, so she can satisfy the local-counsel requirement alone.
• No in-house counsel has entered an appearance. Natals/Ritual's corporate interest certification (Dkt. 4) identifies "None," i.e., no parent/affiliate disclosure.
• I could not retrieve the complaint PDF or the Notice of Pendency text itself, so if a firm letterhead or co-counsel signature block appears inside those documents, I have not verified it. Treat the single-attorney finding as limited to docket signatures.

---

Posture caveat (affects counsel's current status)

The case metadata lists the matter as open, but the PACER Monitor docket (last updated 09/28/2026) shows Dkt. 14 — "NOTICE of Voluntary Dismissal filed by Plaintiff Natals, Inc. Dismissal is Without Prejudice" (Eubanks, Melissa), following a 30-day answer extension (Dkt. 13) and a waiver of service (Dkt. 12). If accurate, the plaintiff's counsel of record has already moved to dismiss this DJ action without prejudice — consistent with the parties litigating the parallel Delaware action. I have not seen a dismissal order or a refiling, so I can't say whether the case will be formally closed or re-filed.

---

Related counsel for context (not plaintiff-side in this case)

• Mirror action: InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Natals, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00823 (D. Del., filed July 8, 2026), asserting infringement of U.S. Patent No. 9,539,216. InnerCap (plaintiff there) is represented by Brian E. Farnan and Michael J. Farnan of Farnan LLP (Wilmington, DE). (PACER Monitor)
• Dkt. 12 (C.D. Cal.) — the waiver of service was signed by "PALANI P. RATHINASAMY." A waiver is ordinarily signed by the defendant or its counsel, so Rathinasamy is presumably on InnerCap's side, but I could not independently confirm his firm or role; do not treat that attribution as verified.

---

Limitations on this research

• I was working from aggregator docket data (PACER Monitor) rather than a live PACER pull, and I hit search-tool limits before I could open the complaint, the CV-71 cover sheet, or VGC LLP's own attorney bio page. VGC LLP's website bio for Eubanks, and any firm press release about this matter, were not reviewed.
• No assertion here should be read as confirming Eubanks' prior patent-specific experience; the public record I found shows general business-litigation, fraud, and labor matters.
• If you need certainty, the authoritative step is a PACER docket pull for Dkts. 1–5 and a check of the ECF "attorneys" tab, which would capture any attorney who entered an appearance without signing a filing.

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

Let me dig into the Delaware parallel case and InnerCap's counsel there, plus check for any C.D. Cal. appearances.

Let me identify InnerCap's litigation team and check whether any defense appearance was filed in the C.D. Cal. case.

Bottom line up front

Based on the public docket snapshots I could retrieve, no attorney has entered an appearance for InnerCap Technologies, Inc. in 2:26-cv-05696 (C.D. Cal.). The only attorney of record tied to the case is plaintiff's counsel, and the case was voluntarily dismissed without prejudice on or about September 28, 2026 — before any defense appearance appears in the public docket. I am therefore unable to identify confirmed defense counsel of record for this case; I will not invent one.

What I can do is give you (a) exactly what the docket shows, and (b) the outside patent-litigation team InnerCap is actually using in the parallel Delaware suits, which is the group most likely to have appeared (or to appear) if this dispute is re-filed.

---

1. What the C.D. Cal. docket actually shows (case 2:26-cv-05696)

Docket snapshot (last updated 09/28/2026), ass. to Judge Michael W. Fitzgerald, referral to Magistrate Judge A. Joel Richlin:

Source: PacerMonitor docket sheet, Natals, Inc. d/b/a Ritual v. InnerCap Technologies, Inc. and the cached snapshot.

The only attorney of record appearing on this docket is:

• Melissa N. Eubanks — VGC LLP — counsel for Plaintiff Natals, Inc. d/b/a Ritual (not defendant). She signed the complaint, the civil cover sheet, the notice of pendency, the stipulation for extension, and the dismissal. Sources: same docket sheet; see also docket entries 1, 5, 6, 14.

Two caveats you should verify on PACER directly:

• The docket shows a signed waiver of service (giving InnerCap until 8/4/2026, later stipulated to 9/3/2026). The signature appears truncated/OCR'd in the aggregator as "PALANI P." — that may be a defense-side signer, an authorized corporate agent, or an OCR artifact. I could not verify the identity of that signer, and I'm not going to guess. This is the single best lead if you want to find who was quietly representing InnerCap pre-dismissal; pull the actual waiver image from PACER.
• Note the aggregators disagree on the cause-of-action coding: the cache lists 28:2201 Declaratory Judgment, while the main PacerMonitor page codes it as 35:271 Patent Infringement. Both appear; treat the "830 Property Rights – Patent" nature-of-suit as authoritative.

---

2. InnerCap's actual patent litigation team (parallel Delaware suits)

InnerCap is plaintiff in three now-related Delaware actions, and its counsel team there is public:

• InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Natals, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00823 (D. Del., filed 7/8/2026)
• InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Nouri Life, Inc., No. 1:26-cv-00903 (D. Del.)
• InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. [Walmart Inc.](/litigations/by-defendant/Walmart%20Inc.), No. 1:26-cv-00488 (D. Del., filed 4/27/2026) — accused the Ritual and Daily Nouri capsule-in-capsule supplements; stayed 8/24/2026 by Judge Jennifer L. Hall pending InnerCap v. Natals and InnerCap v. Nouri Life (Dkt. 18, stipulation and order).

Sources: PacerMonitor, InnerCap v. Natals; PacerMonitor, InnerCap v. Walmart; docket sheet mirror for 1:26-cv-00488.