US 7670612

Patent Summary: US 7,670,612 B2

Title: Multi-phase, multi-compartment capsular delivery apparatus and methods for using same

Assignee: INNERCAP Technologies Inc

Inventor: Fred H. Miller

Filing Date: March 19, 2004

Issue Date: March 2, 2010

Abstract:
The patent describes a multi-compartment capsule for delivering at least two ingredients that may be physically or chemically incompatible. The capsule has at least two separate chambers. One chamber contains an ingredient in a first physical state (such as a liquid, solid, or gas), and the second chamber contains another ingredient in a different physical state. The ingredients are chosen from nutraceuticals, vitamins, dietary supplements, and minerals. This design allows for the combined delivery of different substances in a single dosage form.

Overview of Independent Claims

This patent contains two independent claims, which define the core scope of the invention.

Independent Claim 1: A Multi-Compartment Capsule

In plain language, this claim describes a capsule with at least two separate compartments or "receiving chambers."

• First Chamber: This chamber holds at least one ingredient of a specific physical type (e.g., a liquid, solid, or gas). This ingredient must be a nutraceutical, vitamin, dietary supplement, or a mineral.
• Second Chamber: This chamber also holds at least one ingredient that is a nutraceutical, vitamin, dietary supplement, or a mineral.
• Key Feature: The central innovation protected by this claim is the combination of two different ingredients in two different physical forms within a single capsule. For example, one chamber could hold a liquid vitamin while the second chamber holds a powdered mineral. This allows for the oral administration of multiple, potentially incompatible, substances at the same time.

Independent Claim 11: A Method for Delivering a Multi-Compartment Capsule

This claim outlines the method of using the capsule described in Claim 1.

• The Method: The core of the method involves providing the multi-compartment capsule (as detailed in Claim 1) and then having it be swallowed.
• Purpose: The intended use is for the capsule to be taken orally, thereby delivering the different ingredients from the separate chambers into the body. This claim protects the act of using the specially designed capsule for its intended purpose of oral delivery of multiple substances.

There is no record of US patent 7670612 in the CAFC dockets for 2026 as of the current date.

Known Litigation Involving US Patent 7,670,612

As of May 1, 2026, there is one known litigation involving the patent owner, INNERCAP Technologies, Inc., where the patent-in-suit has not yet been publicly identified, and one inter partes review (IPR) proceeding involving a closely related patent.

District Court Litigation

INNERCAP Technologies, Inc. v. Walmart Inc.

• Plaintiff(s): INNERCAP Technologies, Inc.
• Defendant(s): Walmart Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware
• Case Number: 1:26-cv-00488
• Filing Date: April 27, 2026
• Outcome or Current Status: This case is newly filed and is currently open. The specific patents asserted by INNERCAP Technologies, Inc. in the complaint have not yet been made publicly available in the initial case filings. Therefore, it is not confirmed at this time whether US patent 7,670,612 is involved in this litigation.

Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) Proceedings

While there is no record of direct litigation involving US patent 7,670,612, a closely related patent, US 8,361,497, which is a continuation of the '612 patent, was the subject of an inter partes review (IPR).

Capsugel Belgium NV v. Innercap Technologies, Inc.

• Petitioner: Capsugel Belgium NV
• Patent Owner: Innercap Technologies, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB)
• Case Number: IPR2013-00331
• Filing Date: June 6, 2013
• Outcome or Current Status: An adverse judgment was entered against the patent owner, Innercap Technologies, Inc., resulting in the cancellation of all challenged claims of the patent-in-suit. It is important to note that the patent challenged in this IPR was U.S. Patent No. 8,361,497, not U.S. Patent No. 7,670,612. However, given that the '497 patent is a continuation of the '612 patent, the arguments and prior art used in this proceeding could be highly relevant to the validity of the claims in US 7,670,612.

At present, no other litigation specifically naming US patent 7,670,612 has been identified in publicly available records.

Proceedings overview

There are no recorded AIA trial proceedings directly challenging US Patent 7,670,612 in the USPTO Open Data Portal as of the most recent ingest. However, a closely related patent, US 8,361,497, which is a continuation of US 7,670,612, was subject to an inter partes review (IPR) proceeding (IPR2013-00331) where all challenged claims were ultimately canceled. This outcome for the continuation patent provides significant defensive value for a defendant facing assertion of US 7,670,612, as the underlying technology and prior art are highly likely to overlap.

IPR2013-00331 — Capsugel Belgium NV v. Innercap Technologies, Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: June 6, 2013
• Status: Claims invalidated. An adverse judgment was entered against the patent owner, Innercap Technologies, Inc., resulting in the cancellation of all challenged claims of the patent-in-suit, U.S. Patent No. 8,361,497.
• Judge panel: Information not publicly available in provided search results.
• Petition grounds: Capsugel challenged all 26 issued claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,361,497. The specific prior art and statutory bases (§ 102 / § 103 / § 112) for the challenge are not detailed in the provided search results but typically involve obviousness and/or anticipation.
• Institution decision: The IPR was instituted on all challenged claims, as indicated by the subsequent adverse judgment cancelling those claims.
• Final Written Decision (if issued): An adverse judgment was entered against Innercap Technologies, Inc., leading to the cancellation of all 26 challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 8,361,497. The specific reasoning for the cancellation is not detailed in the provided search results but implies the PTAB found the claims unpatentable based on the petition's arguments.
• Settlement / termination: The proceeding resulted in an adverse judgment and cancellation of claims, rather than a settlement.
• Appeal: Information regarding an appeal of IPR2013-00331 to the Federal Circuit is not explicitly detailed in the provided search results. While general information about IPR appeals is available, specific mention of this particular IPR's appeal status is absent.
• Defensive value: This proceeding is highly significant for anyone facing assertion of US Patent 7,670,612. As US 8,361,497 is a continuation of the '612 patent, the cancellation of all 26 claims in the IPR suggests that the underlying inventive concept, as claimed, was found unpatentable. This indicates a high likelihood that similar or broader claims in the parent US 7,670,612 would also be vulnerable to invalidation if challenged, particularly if based on the same or similar prior art.

Strategic summary

Currently, no claims of US Patent 7,670,612 have been directly challenged or canceled in any AIA trial proceeding at the PTAB. Therefore, all claims of US 7,670,612 are technically "untested" by IPR, PGR, or CBM.

However, the complete cancellation of all 26 challenged claims of US Patent 8,361,497 in IPR2013-00331 is a critical piece of information. Since US 8,361,497 is a continuation of US 7,670,612, it is expected to share substantial overlap in scope and inventiveness with its parent patent. The success of the petitioner, Capsugel Belgium NV, in invalidating all claims of the continuation patent suggests a strong possibility that similar prior art and arguments could be effectively deployed against US 7,670,612. The specific claims of US 7,670,612 are thus highly vulnerable to future challenges, especially if they are substantially similar to the claims that were canceled in IPR2013-00331.

The estoppel landscape from IPR2013-00331 would apply directly to Capsugel Belgium NV and its privies regarding US Patent 8,361,497. However, this estoppel does not directly bar other potential petitioners from challenging US Patent 7,670,612, as it is a different patent. The prior art used in IPR2013-00331 against US 8,361,497 would be highly relevant and likely still available for use against US 7,670,612. There is no information in the provided search results to indicate a pattern of multiple IPR filings by the same petitioner on this patent family or any aggressive pursuit of PTAB appeals by the patent owner concerning IPR2013-00331 specifically.

Recommended next steps

Given the absence of direct PTAB activity on US Patent 7,670,612, a defendant currently facing assertion of this patent should consider initiating an AIA trial proceeding, most likely an Inter Partes Review (IPR), against US 7,670,612. The successful invalidation of all claims of its continuation patent, US 8,361,497, in IPR2013-00331 provides a strong indication of potential vulnerability.

It is recommended to:

• Obtain the Final Written Decision for IPR2013-00331 to thoroughly understand the PTAB's reasoning and the specific prior art and grounds used to cancel the claims of US 8,361,497. This will be crucial for informing any new IPR petition against US 7,670,612. While the full decision is not provided here, information suggests it resulted in the cancellation of all 26 challenged claims.
• Analyze the claims of US 7,670,612 in light of the prior art cited in IPR2013-00331 and the "Prior art" section of this analysis. The strong prior art already identified (e.g., U.S. Patent 6,482,434 (Lledo), U.S. Patent 6,214,376 (De-Vriendt)) appears highly relevant and may form the basis of a new challenge.
• Assess the legal and factual overlap between the claims of US 7,670,612 and the canceled claims of US 8,361,497 to formulate the strongest possible obviousness and/or anticipation arguments for a new petition.
• Be aware that the patent expires on June 11, 2026. Any new PTAB proceeding would need to be filed very quickly given this approaching expiration date, and the strategic value of such a filing should be carefully considered against the remaining patent term.

Inventors

• Fred H. Miller: Employer at the time of filing: INNERCAP Technologies Inc.

Original assignee

The entity named on the issued patent is INNERCAP Technologies Inc. The company's primary line of business was focused on the development of multi-compartment capsule technology for nutraceutical and pharmaceutical applications, aligning directly with the claims of the patent. Publicly available information regarding specific products shipped by INNERCAP Technologies Inc. embodying the claims is limited. The company appears to have transferred its intellectual property, including this patent, to INNERCAP IP, LLC in 2018. While INNERCAP Technologies Inc. is listed as the plaintiff in a recent litigation, the patent ownership has formally shifted to an IP holding entity.

Assignment timeline

• 2004-08-31 (executed) / recorded 2004-08-31 — Reel 012297/0038

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: MILLER, FRED H.
  • Assignee: INNERCAP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Correspondent: ROBERT E MCDONALD, MCDONALD IP LAW GROUP, PLLC, 12626 NORTH UPSTREAM DRIVE, SAN ANTONIO, TX 78253.
  • Context: Initial assignment from the inventor to the original assignee.

• 2018-09-07 (executed) / recorded 2018-10-18 — Reel 050044/0001

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignor's Interest
  • Assignor: INNERCAP TECHNOLOGIES, INC.
  • Assignee: INNERCAP IP, LLC
  • Correspondent: KEVIN WAGNER, 8 THE GREEN, STE A, DOVER, DE 19901.
  • Context: Transfer from an operating company to an IP holding entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 7670612
    2004 : Inventor assigned to INNERCAP Technologies Inc
    2010 : Patent issued
    2018 : Assigned to INNERCAP IP LLC
    2026 : Lawsuit filed (INNERCAP Tech Inc v Walmart)

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Present. The patent was assigned from "INNERCAP TECHNOLOGIES, INC." to "INNERCAP IP, LLC" on 2018-09-07 (Reel 050044/0001). The name "INNERCAP IP, LLC" strongly suggests an intellectual property holding company, which is a common characteristic of a shell entity. The correspondent's address, "8 THE GREEN, STE A, DOVER, DE 19901," is a known registered agent service address in Delaware, further supporting this.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Unclear. While INNERCAP Technologies Inc. is acting as a plaintiff in current litigation, it is not listed on standard public NPE directories. The current owner of record, INNERCAP IP, LLC, also does not appear on these lists as a widely recognized NPE, though its structure suggests it acts as one. The assertion activity itself is indicative, but without inclusion on established lists, it remains unclear.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Not present. Robert E McDonald handled the first assignment (Reel 012297/0038), and Kevin Wagner handled the second (Reel 050044/0001).
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. There were only two assignments, separated by over 14 years.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. The last assignment occurred on 2018-09-07 (Reel 050044/0001), which is more than six months prior to the filing of the INNERCAP Technologies, Inc. v. Walmart Inc. lawsuit on April 27, 2026.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. No evidence of the original assignee or any subsequent assignee filing for bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — Unclear. There is no public information or SEC filings available to suggest that the patent was transferred to an NPE to assert on behalf of an operating company.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The chain does not terminate with a known defensive aggregator (e.g., RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, OIN).

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The patent was transferred from INNERCAP Technologies, Inc. to INNERCAP IP, LLC on 2018-09-07 (Reel 050044/0001), with the assignee registered at a Delaware agent service address. This shell-entity transfer, combined with the subsequent assertion of related intellectual property against Walmart Inc. by INNERCAP Technologies Inc., strongly indicates a patent monetization strategy typical of a Non-Practicing Entity.

USPTO Patent Assignment Search for US7670612

Analysis of Prior Art Cited in US Patent 7,670,612

Below is an analysis of the most relevant prior art cited by the applicant and the USPTO examiner during the prosecution of US patent 7,670,612. This analysis focuses on the potential for each reference to anticipate the independent claims of the '612 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 102, which requires a single prior art reference to disclose every element of a claimed invention.

The independent claims of interest are:

• Claim 1: A multi-compartment capsule containing at least two different ingredients (selected from nutraceuticals, vitamins, dietary supplements, or minerals) in at least two different physical states (e.g., liquid, solid, gas).
• Claim 11: A method of delivering the capsule of Claim 1 by oral administration.

---

1. U.S. Patent 6,214,376 B1

• Full Citation: De-Vriendt, "Compartmented capsule," U.S. Patent 6,214,376 B1, assigned to Banner Pharmacaps, Inc.
• Dates: Filed: September 23, 1998; Issued: April 10, 2001.
• Brief Description: This patent discloses a soft gelatin capsule containing at least two compartments separated by a partition. The compartments are designed to hold different fill materials which may be physically or chemically incompatible. The specification explicitly teaches that these fill materials can be in different physical states, stating, "In a preferred embodiment, one of said at least two fill materials is a liquid and another of said at least two fill materials is a solid" (Column 3, lines 1-3). The patent also mentions vitamins as a possible fill material (Column 5, line 14).
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s): 1 and 11.
  • This patent appears to teach every element of Claim 1. It describes a capsule with "at least two compartments" (fulfilling the "at least two receiving chambers" element). It discloses that the compartments can contain different ingredients, including vitamins, in different physical states ("liquid" and "solid").
  • As the patent describes a soft gelatin capsule, a standard oral dosage form, it inherently discloses the method of oral administration recited in Claim 11.

---

2. U.S. Patent 6,482,434 B1

• Full Citation: Lledo, "Nutritional supplement formulation," U.S. Patent 6,482,434 B1, assigned to Bio-Nutrix, Inc.
• Dates: Filed: March 20, 2001; Issued: November 19, 2002.
• Brief Description: This reference describes a dosage form designed to stabilize the dietary supplement S-adenosylmethionine (SAMe) by physically separating it from other ingredients. The patent explicitly discloses using a "two compartment capsule" or a "capsule in a capsule" design. It specifically teaches filling one compartment with a solid tablet of SAMe and the other compartment with a liquid or semi-solid containing a second ingredient, such as "a vitamin and/or a mineral" (Column 2, lines 60-67).
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s): 1 and 11.
  • This patent is highly relevant and appears to anticipate Claim 1. It discloses a structure with two chambers ("two compartment capsule"). The ingredients are explicitly identified as "dietary supplement," "vitamin," and "mineral," directly corresponding to the language in Claim 1 of the '612 patent. Furthermore, it explicitly discloses placing these ingredients in different physical states (a "solid tablet" and a "liquid or semi-solid").
  • The disclosure of a capsule for delivering nutritional supplements makes oral administration the only intended and obvious method of use, thus anticipating Claim 11.

---

3. U.S. Patent 4,738,852

• Full Citation: Fraipont, "Hard gelatin capsule for the controlled release of active substances," U.S. Patent 4,738,852, assigned to S.T.P. Pharma.
• Dates: Filed: July 2, 1986; Issued: April 19, 1988.
• Brief Description: This patent discloses a hard gelatin capsule divided into two distinct compartments by a separating plug. The design allows for the combination of incompatible substances or substances requiring different release profiles. The patent clearly states that the compartments can hold ingredients in different physical states, for example, "the first compartment contains a liquid or pasty phase... and the second compartment contains a solid phase constituted by a powder, microgranules or minitablets" (Column 2, lines 4-8).
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s): 1 and 11.
  • This reference strongly teaches the structural elements of Claim 1, namely a capsule with two chambers containing ingredients in different physical states (liquid/pasty and solid). The primary difference lies in the terminology used for the ingredients. The '852 patent refers to "active substances" and "medicaments," whereas Claim 1 of the '612 patent specifies "nutraceuticals, vitamins, dietary supplements, or minerals." While a vitamin can be considered an "active substance," this difference in language might prevent a strict finding of anticipation under 35 U.S.C. § 102. However, it is a very strong reference for a potential obviousness challenge under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
  • It would likewise be a strong reference against the method of Claim 11.

---

4. U.S. Patent 5,679,376

• Full Citation: Sheth et al., "Dosage form for delivering a drug," U.S. Patent 5,679,376, assigned to Alza Corporation.
• Dates: Filed: August 25, 1995; Issued: October 21, 1997.
• Brief Description: This patent discloses a dosage form, such as a capsule, comprising at least two compartments separated by a partition for delivering incompatible agents. The abstract states, "The drug formulation and the drug-protective formulation can be in the form of a liquid, semi-solid or solid..." The invention is intended for oral administration and is designed to protect a drug from degradation in the gastrointestinal tract.
• Potential Anticipation of Claim(s): 1 and 11.
  • Similar to the '852 patent, this reference discloses the key structural concept of a two-compartment capsule for delivering substances in different physical states (Claim 1). The term "drug" is used to describe the active ingredient. Whether this term inherently includes the "nutraceuticals, vitamins, dietary supplements, or minerals" of Claim 1 is a point of potential distinction. An argument could be made that a vitamin used for a therapeutic purpose is a drug, but a vitamin sold as a dietary supplement is not. This ambiguity makes this reference more suited for an obviousness argument rather than direct anticipation of Claim 1.
  • The reference clearly describes an oral dosage form, making it highly relevant to the method of Claim 11.

Obviousness Analysis of US Patent 7,670,612 under 35 U.S.C. § 103

Based on the prior art of record, the independent claims of US patent 7,670,612 are highly vulnerable to a challenge of obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103. An invention is considered obvious if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time the invention was made to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSA).

A POSA in this context would be a pharmaceutical formulation scientist or engineer circa 2002-2004 with experience in designing oral dosage forms, including capsules, and knowledge of formulating active ingredients such as pharmaceuticals, vitamins, and dietary supplements.

---

Analysis of Independent Claim 1

Claim 1 recites: A multi-compartment capsule comprising:

• (a) At least two receiving chambers.
• (b) A first ingredient in a first chamber, where the ingredient is a nutraceutical, vitamin, dietary supplement, or mineral, and is in a first physical state (e.g., solid, liquid, gas).
• (c) A second ingredient in a second chamber, where the ingredient is also a nutraceutical, vitamin, dietary supplement, or mineral, and is in a second, different physical state.

The following combinations of prior art would render the claimed subject matter of Claim 1 obvious.

1. U.S. Patent 6,482,434 (Lledo) on its own or as a Primary Reference

U.S. Patent 6,482,434 (Lledo) is exceptionally strong prior art that arguably anticipates, and at a minimum renders obvious, Claim 1.

• Lledo's Teachings: As described in the prior art analysis, Lledo explicitly discloses a "two compartment capsule" to solve the problem of stabilizing the dietary supplement SAMe. Crucially, Lledo teaches filling one compartment with a solid tablet of SAMe (a dietary supplement) and the other compartment with a liquid or semi-solid containing a second ingredient, such as a vitamin and/or a mineral.
• Obviousness Argument: Lledo teaches every element of Claim 1. It discloses a capsule with two chambers, containing ingredients from the precise classes recited in Claim 1 (dietary supplement, vitamin, mineral) in two different physical states (solid and liquid). A POSA would find it entirely obvious to substitute the specific ingredients in Lledo (SAMe, vitamins, minerals) with any other ingredients from the same disclosed classes (nutraceuticals, vitamins, dietary supplements, minerals) to solve the same known problem of combining incompatible substances or improving consumer convenience. Lledo provides the complete blueprint and motivation for the invention claimed in the '612 patent.

2. Combination of U.S. Patent 6,214,376 (De-Vriendt) and U.S. Patent 6,482,434 (Lledo)

This combination provides a compelling argument for obviousness.

• Base Reference (De-Vriendt): De-Vriendt establishes the foundational technology. It teaches a soft gelatin capsule with at least two compartments designed to hold different, potentially incompatible fill materials. De-Vriendt explicitly states that one fill material can be a liquid and the other can be a solid. It further identifies vitamins as a possible fill material.
• Motivation to Combine/Modify: A POSA starting with De-Vriendt's general concept of a multi-phase, multi-compartment capsule for vitamins would be motivated to look for specific applications of this technology within the field of nutritional products. Lledo provides just such an application. A POSA would see that the known technology of separating liquid and solid phases, as taught by De-Vriendt, could be directly applied to solve the specific stability and co-delivery problems for the exact classes of compounds mentioned in Lledo—dietary supplements, vitamins, and minerals. The motivation to combine these teachings is to leverage a known delivery system (De-Vriendt) for a known category of ingredients (Lledo) to achieve a known goal (co-delivery of incompatible ingredients). This constitutes a classic case of applying a known technique to a known device ready for improvement, which is a hallmark of obviousness.

3. Combination of U.S. Patent 4,738,852 (Fraipont) or U.S. Patent 5,679,376 (Sheth) with General Knowledge in the Art

These combinations demonstrate that the core concept was broadly known and its application to supplements would have been an obvious extension.

• Base References (Fraipont or Sheth): Both Fraipont and Sheth teach the fundamental structure of Claim 1: a capsule with two distinct compartments capable of holding ingredients in different physical states (e.g., liquid/pasty and solid). These patents describe the contents as "active substances," "medicaments," or "drugs."
• Motivation to Combine/Modify: The only distinction between these references and Claim 1 of the '612 patent is the specific recitation of "nutraceuticals, vitamins, dietary supplements, or minerals." By the early 2000s, vitamins and dietary supplements were a massive and growing market, and formulators were constantly seeking new delivery methods to improve stability and consumer appeal. Applying the established multi-compartment capsule technology of Fraipont or Sheth to the field of dietary supplements would have been an obvious, market-driven extension. There was no technical barrier or unpredictability in doing so. A POSA would have had a reasonable expectation of success in placing a liquid vitamin and a powdered mineral into the capsule structure described by Fraipont, as the physical principles of encapsulation are not limited to one specific class of "active substance." The motivation is simply to apply a known solution to an analogous field to gain the same benefits (separation of incompatible ingredients, novel dosage forms).

---

Analysis of Independent Claim 11

Claim 11 recites a method of delivering the multi-compartment capsule of Claim 1 by oral administration.

• Obviousness Argument: This claim is derivative of Claim 1 and is obvious for the same reasons. All the cited prior art references (De-Vriendt, Lledo, Fraipont, and Sheth) describe oral dosage forms (capsules) intended to be swallowed. Oral administration is the inherent and sole intended use of such a capsule. If the apparatus of Claim 1 is obvious based on the prior art, then the method of using that apparatus for its intended and conventional purpose—swallowing it—is also obvious. There is no non-obvious method step recited in Claim 11; it merely claims the act of using the obvious device. Therefore, any combination of prior art that renders Claim 1 obvious would likewise render Claim 11 obvious.

Patent Term and Family Data for US Patent 7,670,612

Based on a review of USPTO public records for US patent 7,670,612 (the '612 patent), the following information details its term adjustments, related applications, and projected expiration date.

Patent Term Adjustment (PTA)

A significant Patent Term Adjustment (PTA) was granted for the '612 patent due to delays by the USPTO during prosecution.

• Total PTA Granted: 1,159 days.

This adjustment is intended to compensate the patent owner for examination delays that extended beyond the standard timeframes allotted to the USPTO.

Projected Expiration Date

The expiration date of a U.S. patent filed after June 8, 1995, is generally calculated as 20 years from the earliest non-provisional application filing date, plus any granted PTA.

• Application Filing Date: March 19, 2004.
• Initial 20-Year Term End Date: March 19, 2024.
• PTA: + 1,159 days.
• Projected Expiration Date: June 11, 2026.

The patent is currently listed as active, with an adjusted expiration date of June 11, 2026. No other patent term extensions (PTE), typically granted for regulatory review delays (e.g., by the FDA), were found on record.

Continuity and Related Applications

The '612 patent is part of a larger family of patents and applications, claiming priority to several earlier filings and serving as the parent for subsequent continuation applications.

Priority Claim / Parent Applications:

The application for the '612 patent (Ser. No. 10/804,576) is a continuation-in-part and claims the benefit of the following earlier applications:

• PCT/US2003/010816: Filed April 9, 2003.
• U.S. Provisional Application No. 60/371,448: Filed April 10, 2002.
• U.S. Application No. 10/369,427: Filed February 18, 2003.
• U.S. Application No. 10/368,951: Filed February 18, 2003.
• U.S. Application No. 10/369,244: Filed February 18, 2003.

Child Applications (Continuations):

The '612 patent is the parent of several continuation applications, indicating an ongoing strategy by the assignee, INNERCAP Technologies Inc., to protect related inventions. These include:

• U.S. Patent No. 8,361,497: From application Ser. No. 12/689,669, filed January 19, 2010.
• U.S. Patent No. 9,241,911: From application Ser. No. 14/036,521, filed September 25, 2013.
• U.S. Patent No. 9,539,216: From application Ser. No. 15/005,508, filed January 25, 2016.
• U.S. Publication No. 2013/0136791 A1: From application Ser. No. 13/746,743, filed January 22, 2013.

No divisional applications were found to have been filed from the '612 patent application. The extensive family of related applications underscores a focused effort to build upon the core technology of multi-compartment capsules.

Defensive Disclosure and Prior Art Generation

RE: US Patent 7,670,612
Title: Multi-phase, multi-compartment capsular delivery apparatus and methods for using same
Publication Date: May 1, 2026
Status: Public Disclosure

This document serves as a defensive publication of derivative inventions and improvements related to the art described in US Patent 7,670,612. The following disclosures are intended to enter the public domain to be used as prior art against future patent applications for trivial or obvious variations of multi-phase, multi-compartment capsule technology.

---

Derivative Disclosures based on Independent Claim 1

The following disclosures describe variations and new applications of a multi-compartment capsule apparatus.

Axis 1: Material & Component Substitution

Derivative 1.1: Multi-Compartment Capsule with pH-Keyed Polysaccharide Hydrogel Shells for Targeted Gastrointestinal Release

• Enabling Description: This variation replaces the standard gelatin or HPMC shell with a composite hydrogel material comprising a blend of pectin and chitosan. The first compartment, intended for gastric release, is constructed from a gelatin-based shell. The second, adjoining compartment is constructed from the pectin-chitosan hydrogel. The pectin-chitosan matrix is cross-linked using calcium chloride. This composite material is resistant to degradation at the low pH of the stomach (pH 1.5-3.5) but swells and dissolves at the higher pH of the small intestine (pH 6.0-7.4). This allows for a sequential release profile: the liquid ingredient (e.g., a lipid-soluble vitamin like Vitamin D in a carrier oil) in the first compartment is released in the stomach, while the solid ingredient (e.g., a probiotic bacterial powder) in the second compartment is protected from gastric acid and released in the intestine.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph TD
      subgraph Capsule
          direction LR
          C1(Compartment 1: Gelatin Shell);
          C2(Compartment 2: Pectin-Chitosan Shell);
          C1 -- Adjoined --> C2;
      end
  
      subgraph GI Tract
          direction TB
          Stomach(Stomach, pH 2.0);
          Intestine(Intestine, pH 7.0);
          Stomach --> Intestine;
      end
  
      Oral[Oral Administration] --> Stomach;
      C1 -- Dissolves in --> Stomach;
      C2 -- Passes Through --> Stomach;
      C2 -- Dissolves in --> Intestine;
  
      style C1 fill:#f9f,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px;
      style C2 fill:#ccf,stroke:#333,stroke-width:2px;
  

Derivative 1.2: Multi-Compartment Capsule with Electrically Actuated Polymer Membrane

• Enabling Description: The partition separating the two compartments is not a static wall but an electrically-actuated membrane made from an electro-responsive polymer (ERP), such as a polyaniline-doped hydrogel. One compartment contains an ingestible micro-battery and control circuit, while the other two compartments contain the active ingredients (e.g., liquid and solid). The control circuit is pre-programmed or triggered by an external magnetic field to apply a small voltage (<<5V) across the ERP membrane. Upon actuation, the polymer undergoes a conformational change, increasing its porosity and allowing the contents of one chamber to mix with the other, or for both to be released. This enables precise, timed mixing or release independent of environmental pH or enzymes.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant ExternalDevice as External Device
      participant Capsule
      participant Microcontroller as MCU
      participant ERP_Membrane as Electro-Responsive Membrane
  
      ExternalDevice ->> Capsule: Transmits Magnetic Pulse Trigger
      Capsule ->> Microcontroller: Receives Trigger Signal
      Microcontroller ->> ERP_Membrane: Apply Voltage (V)
      ERP_Membrane ->> ERP_Membrane: Conformational Change (Increased Porosity)
      Note over Capsule: Contents of Chamber A and B mix/release
  

Derivative 1.3: Personalized 3D-Printed Multi-Material Capsule

• Enabling Description: The entire capsule body and internal partitions are fabricated using multi-material fused deposition modeling (FDM) or stereolithography (SLA) 3D printing. The printer uses several GRAS (Generally Recognized as Safe) filaments or resins with different dissolution profiles (e.g., a fast-dissolving polyvinyl alcohol (PVA), a slower-dissolving ethyl cellulose, and an enteric hydroxypropyl methylcellulose phthalate). This allows for the creation of a monolithic capsule with multiple compartments where the release time of each compartment is precisely controlled by the printed thickness and material composition of its respective walls. A patient's specific needs could dictate a custom design with, for example, four compartments releasing at 0, 1, 4, and 8 hours post-ingestion.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  classDiagram
      class Capsule {
          +string patientID
          +compartmentList
          +print()
      }
      class Compartment {
          -material: DissolvablePolymer
          -wallThickness: float
          -contents: Ingredient
      }
      class DissolvablePolymer {
          <<enumeration>>
          PVA
          Ethyl_Cellulose
          HPMC_Phthalate
      }
      Capsule "1" *-- "2..N" Compartment: contains
      Compartment -- DissolvablePolymer: material
  

Axis 2: Operational Parameter Expansion

Derivative 2.1: Nanoscale Multi-Chamber Liposomal Vesicle

• Enabling Description: The concept is scaled down to the nanoscale. A multi-lamellar liposome is synthesized to have a solid lipid nanoparticle (SLN) core, forming the first chamber. This SLN core contains a solid, crystalline nutraceutical (e.g., Coenzyme Q10). This core is then encapsulated by one or more phospholipid bilayers. The aqueous space between the SLN core and the outer lipid bilayer forms the second compartment, containing a water-soluble ingredient (e.g., Vitamin C). The entire structure is less than 500 nm in diameter and is administered as a colloidal suspension. Release is sequential: the outer layers are disrupted by cellular interaction, releasing the Vitamin C, followed by the slower enzymatic degradation of the solid lipid core, releasing the CoQ10.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph TD
      subgraph Nanoscale Vesicle (100-500nm)
          A(Chamber 1: Solid Lipid Nanoparticle Core - CoQ10);
          B(Chamber 2: Aqueous Space - Vitamin C);
          C(Outer Shell: Phospholipid Bilayer);
          A -- Encapsulated by --> B;
          B -- Encapsulated by --> C;
      end
      style A fill:#D5F5E3
      style B fill:#EAF2F8
      style C fill:#FDEDEC
  

Derivative 2.2: Industrial Catalyst Delivery via High-Pressure Autoclave-Resistant Capsule

• Enabling Description: The capsule is designed for industrial chemical synthesis, not human consumption. The shell is made of a high-performance thermoplastic like PEEK (polyether ether ketone), and the compartments are separated by a metallic rupture disc (e.g., thin-film stainless steel). Chamber 1 contains a solid catalyst (e.g., powdered palladium on carbon). Chamber 2 contains a liquid reaction initiator or promoter (e.g., an organic peroxide). The capsule is introduced into a high-pressure ( > 100 bar) and high-temperature ( > 200°C) reaction vessel. The specific pressure and temperature of the reaction process cause the rupture disc to fail predictably, releasing the initiator into the catalyst chamber and commencing the reaction at a precise moment in the process.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      [*] --> Sealed
      Sealed: Chamber 1 (Solid Catalyst), Chamber 2 (Liquid Initiator)
      Sealed --> Ruptured: Event(T > 200C, P > 100bar)
      Ruptured: Rupture disc fails, contents mix.
      Ruptured --> Reaction: Initiator contacts Catalyst
      Reaction --> [*]
  

Axis 3: Cross-Domain Application

Derivative 3.1: Aerospace Application - Two-Part Epoxy Delivery for In-Situ Repair

• Enabling Description: A multi-compartment capsule for repairing micro-cracks in composite materials on spacecraft or aircraft. The capsule, shaped as a micro-rod, has two chambers. The first contains an epoxy resin (liquid) and the second contains a hardener (liquid or paste). These capsules are embedded within the composite material matrix during manufacturing. When a crack propagates through the composite, it ruptures the capsules in its path. The rupturing of the separating membrane between the chambers allows the resin and hardener to mix via capillary action and subsequently cure, autonomously healing the crack. The capsule shell is made of a material, like borosilicate glass, that fractures cleanly upon crack propagation.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph LR
      A(Composite Matrix) -- contains --> B(Embedded Capsule);
      subgraph B
          C1(Chamber 1: Epoxy Resin);
          C2(Chamber 2: Hardener);
          M(Separating Membrane);
          C1 -- M -- C2;
      end
      D(Crack Propagation) -- fractures --> B;
      B -- releases --> E(Mixed Epoxy);
      E -- cures to --> F(Healed Crack);
      A -- is repaired by --> F;
  

Derivative 3.2: AgTech Application - Symbiotic Biphasic Nutrient and Microbe Delivery System

• Enabling Description: A biodegradable capsule for agricultural use, planted with a seed. The capsule has two compartments separated by a semi-permeable membrane made of polylactic acid (PLA) with a specific porosity. Chamber 1 contains solid-phase, slow-release fertilizer pellets (e.g., nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium). Chamber 2 contains a liquid suspension of beneficial microbes (e.g., Rhizobium bacteria or mycorrhizal fungi). After planting, ground moisture slowly permeates the outer shell. The water first activates the microbes. The semi-permeable membrane allows dissolved nutrients from the fertilizer side to slowly diffuse into the microbe side, providing sustenance for the microbes as they colonize the seedling's root system. This creates a symbiotic micro-environment for enhanced plant growth.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  sequenceDiagram
      participant SoilMoisture
      participant Capsule
      participant Chamber_A as Chamber A (Fertilizer)
      participant Chamber_B as Chamber B (Microbes)
      participant PlantRoot
  
      SoilMoisture->>Capsule: Permeates outer shell
      Capsule->>Chamber_B: Activates dormant microbes
      Chamber_A->>Chamber_B: Nutrients diffuse via semi-permeable membrane
      Chamber_B->>PlantRoot: Microbes colonize root system
      PlantRoot->>PlantRoot: Enhanced nutrient uptake
  

Axis 4: Integration with Emerging Tech

Derivative 4.1: IoT-Enabled Capsule for Real-Time Adherence Monitoring

• Enabling Description: An edible, multi-compartment capsule that includes a third, inert chamber containing an ingestible event marker (IEM) sensor. The sensor is powered by an electrolyte-activated galvanic cell that becomes active upon contact with stomach fluid. The outer shells of the two active ingredient chambers are made of materials with different dissolution times. When the first compartment dissolves in the stomach, the IEM is activated and transmits a unique, low-power signal (e.g., via NFC) to a wearable patch on the patient's skin. When the second, delayed-release compartment dissolves hours later in the intestine, a conductive trace embedded in its shell breaks, causing a change in the impedance of the sensor's circuit. This impedance change is detected and transmitted as a second, distinct signal. The data is relayed from the patch to a smartphone app and a clinician's dashboard, providing verified data on both ingestion time and the release time of each component.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  graph TD
      subgraph DataFlow
          A(Capsule Ingested) --> B{Stomach};
          B --> C[Compartment 1 Dissolves];
          C --> D[IEM Sensor Activated];
          D -- NFC --> E(Wearable Patch);
          B --> F{Intestine};
          F --> G[Compartment 2 Dissolves];
          G --> H[Impedance Change Detected];
          H -- NFC --> E;
          E -- Bluetooth --> I(Smartphone App);
          I -- Internet --> J(Clinician Dashboard);
      end
  

Derivative 4.3: Blockchain-Verified Capsule with DNA-Based Tracer

• Enabling Description: To combat counterfeiting of high-value supplements, the multi-compartment capsule is enhanced with a non-fungible traceability marker. Chamber 1 contains the active liquid ingredient. Chamber 2 contains the active solid ingredient. A third, very small chamber contains a powder of microparticles encapsulating a unique, synthetic, non-biological DNA sequence. This DNA sequence acts as a unique identifier for the manufacturing batch. At the point of manufacture, the hash of this DNA sequence is registered on a distributed ledger (blockchain). A consumer or regulator can dissolve the capsule in a buffer, extract the DNA tracer, sequence it using a portable sequencer (e.g., MinION), and verify the sequence's hash against the public blockchain record to confirm authenticity and provenance.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  flowchart LR
      subgraph Manufacturer
          A(Create DNA Tracer) --> B(Insert into Capsule);
          A --> C{Hash(DNA_Sequence)};
          C --> D[Write Hash to Blockchain];
      end
      subgraph Consumer
          E(Receive Capsule) --> F(Dissolve & Extract DNA);
          F --> G(Sequence DNA);
          G --> H{Hash(DNA_Sequence)};
          H -- Compare --> I((Blockchain Record));
      end
      D -- Public Ledger --> I;
      I -- Verification --> J(Authentic/Counterfeit);
  

Axis 5: The "Inverse" or Failure Mode

Derivative 5.1: Fail-Safe Neutralizing Capsule for Potent Botanicals

• Enabling Description: This capsule is designed for delivering potent compounds where an accidental overdose from crushing or chewing the capsule is a risk (e.g., concentrated herbal extracts). Chamber 1 contains the potent liquid botanical extract. Chamber 2 contains a solid, high-adsorption material like activated charcoal or a reactive neutralizing agent (e.g., sodium bicarbonate for an acidic compound). The two chambers are separated by a fragile, brittle membrane. Under normal oral administration, the outer shell dissolves and the chambers release their contents sequentially. However, if the capsule is crushed (subjected to mechanical failure), the internal membrane fractures, causing the potent liquid to immediately mix with the neutralizing/adsorbing agent in Chamber 2, rendering it inert or poorly absorbed before it can cause harm.
• Mermaid Diagram:

  stateDiagram-v2
      state "Normal Operation" as Normal {
          [*] --> Swallowed
          Swallowed --> Gastric_Release_C1
          Gastric_Release_C1 --> Intestinal_Release_C2
          Intestinal_Release_C2 --> [*]
      }
      state "Failure Mode" as Failure {
          [*] --> Crushed
          Crushed --> Internal_Mixing: Brittle membrane fractures
          Internal_Mixing --> Neutralized: Potent liquid adsorbs to charcoal
          Neutralized --> [*]
      }
  

---

Combination Prior Art with Open-Source Standards

1. Combination with FHIR Standard for Automated Personalized Dosing: The 3D-printed multi-material capsule (Derivative 1.3) is combined with the Health Level Seven International (HL7) Fast Healthcare Interoperability Resources (FHIR) standard. A patient's electronic health record (EHR), structured using FHIR resources (e.g., Observation for lab results, MedicationRequest for prescriptions), is accessed by a secure pharmacy-based application. The application's logic, based on pharmacokinetics, determines the optimal dosage and release profile for multiple supplements. It then automatically generates a G-code file tailored to print a specific capsule geometry using the necessary GRAS polymers, directly linking clinical data to a personalized, manufactured dosage form.

2. Combination with MQTT Protocol for Smart Capsule Data Transmission: The IoT-enabled capsule (Derivative 4.1) utilizes the ISO standard MQTT (Message Queuing Telemetry Transport) protocol for communication. The ingestible sensor, upon event detection (dissolution of a compartment), acts as an MQTT client. It publishes a lightweight message with a specific topic (e.g., patient/A4B2/capsule/event1) to an MQTT broker running on the wearable patch. The smartphone app subscribes to this topic. This use of a standard, low-overhead, publish/subscribe protocol ensures reliable data transmission from a power-constrained device and allows for interoperability with various health platforms.

3. Combination with Arduino Open-Source Hardware for DIY Bio-Hacking: The core principles of the multi-compartment capsule are adapted for use by the "do-it-yourself biology" (DIY-Bio) community. An open-source design for a two-chamber capsule mold is released on a platform like Thingiverse. The design is compatible with home-grade silicone molding techniques. Instructions are provided for creating separating membranes using standard food-grade materials. The system is designed to be controlled by an Arduino microcontroller, which could actuate a small servo to combine the contents of the two chambers in a home bioreactor for experiments in timed-release nutrient delivery to cell cultures or fermentation batches, democratizing the technology beyond commercial manufacturing.