US 9539216

I'll verify the patent details against live sources before summarizing.

Let me dig further into the litigation picture and confirm whether the '216 patent itself (not just its family member) is being asserted.

I found the litigation trail. Let me check whether the '216 patent specifically appears on any 2026 docket, and pull its claim set.

Search & verification note

I searched for the literal string 9539216 and the granted number US 9,539,216 B2. Sources found agree with the authoritative patent text supplied: Google Patents (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9539216B2](/patent/US9539216B2)/en), PubChem patent record (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/US-9539216-B2), and a secondary wiki entry. No source surfaced any conflicting alternate identification of this number, so I have not auto-corrected anything.

US 9,539,216 B2 — Verified Bibliographic Summary

Point worth flagging: the anticipated expiration of 2023‑04‑09 is derived from the 2003 PCT filing, meaning this patent's 20-year term ran out before it issued in 2017. Google Patents lists it as expired. If accurate, that is legally significant — treat it as a reported status, not a legal conclusion.

Abstract (verbatim from the record)

"A multi-compartment capsule, comprising, a first receiving chamber comprising at least one ingredient having a first physical state, wherein said ingredient is selected from the group consisting of a nutraceutical, a vitamin, a dietary supplement and a mineral; and a second receiving chamber comprising at least one ingredient having a second physical state, wherein said ingredient is selected from the group consisting of a nutraceutical, a vitamin, a dietary supplement and a mineral; wherein said first physical state of said ingredient of said first receiving chamber being different from said second physical state of said ingredient of said second receiving chamber; and said ingredient of said first receiving chamber being different from said ingredient of said second receiving chamber."

Independent claims — plain-language overview

Important uncertainty: the authoritative text supplied for this lookup was truncated at the front page. The full claim set of US 9,539,216 was not retrieved, and my follow-up fetch for claim language hit a tool limit. I will not fabricate claim numbers or language. What I can say with grounding:

1. Claim 1 (high confidence, but indirect). The abstract above mirrors the standard claim‑1 pattern used across this patent family. In plain terms, claim 1 likely covers a capsule with two (or more) chambers, each holding a different ingredient in a different physical state (e.g., liquid vs. solid), where each ingredient is drawn from the group nutraceutical, vitamin, dietary supplement, or mineral. This is inferential from the abstract, not verified claim text — flag as uncertain.

2. The '216 claim set is not the same as the related '612 claim set. US 7,670,612 (same title, same inventor/assignee, same priority chain) has 111 claims across 13 drawing sheets, and its independent claim 33 is directed to a first chamber containing at least one oil in immediate-release form plus a second, enveloped chamber containing only solid ingredients with at least one solid active ingredient formulated for time-delayed dissolution and release, in a hard-shell capsule. For '216 the Google Patents term-frequency data signals a claim set weighted heavily toward specific actives — e.g., "extract" (147 claim mentions), curcumin/diferuloylmethane (13 claims), saw palmetto extract (11), omega‑3 fatty acid (9), coenzyme Q10, quercetin, hesperidin, yohimbine, forskolin, and "botanicals" (13 claims). That pattern suggests independent claims to specific nutraceutical/botanical combinations in separate chambers, but I could not verify a single one of them against primary claim text. This should be sourced from the USPTO PatentCenter full-text record before being relied on.

3. Method claims. The title recites "…and methods for using same," and the specification speaks to methods of administering heterogeneous compounds via a multi-compartment delivery system, so at least one independent method claim (e.g., administering/filling/making) is plausible — but again not verified for '216.

Litigation search — USPTO/CAFC 2026 dockets for 9539216

Result: I found no 2026 district court or Federal Circuit docket asserting or appealing US 9,539,216. The InnerCap 2026 enforcement campaign that I did locate asserts a different patent number, US 7,670,612 — the earlier family member — despite the identical title. Because the instruction is literal-number-only, I am reporting these as context on the family, not as hits for 9539216:

Federal Circuit: no 2026 CAFC appeal docket involving InnerCap Technologies or 9539216 appeared in the results. Since the D. Del. and D. Minn. cases were only at the pleading / answer-extension stage as of the retrieval, no appeal would be ripe — an appeal to the CAFC would not exist yet.

Two date anomalies you should be aware of. Today's stated date is 2026‑04‑26, but live retrieval returned docket entries dated after that: the Walmart and Target complaints (2026‑04‑27 and 2026‑04‑30), a July 2026 answer extension, a May 2026 Lexology report, and a July 2026 Nouri complaint. I am reporting the dates literally as retrieved rather than reconciling them. If your working date needs to be the latest of these, the search results should control.

Bottom line

• US 9,539,216 B2 is a Miller/InnerCap capsule‑in‑capsule patent, filed 2016‑01‑25, issued 2017‑01‑10, claiming priority back to 2002‑04‑10, and reported as expired (anticipated expiration 2023‑04‑09).
• Its abstract describes a two‑chamber capsule holding different nutraceutical/vitamin/supplement/mineral ingredients in different physical states.
• Enforcement in 2026 is happening on the sibling patent 7,670,612, not on 9,539,216 — which is consistent with the '216 term having already lapsed.
• Verification gap: I could not confirm any independent claim number or claim text specific to 9,539,216. The abstract‑level overview in §1 above is inference; the remainder of the claim discussion is family context only. Confirm against USPTO PatentCenter full‑text before relying on it.

I'll research litigation involving US patent 9539216. Let me run several searches.

I found relevant leads. Let me dig into the specific InnerCap cases and which patents they assert.

Summary of research

I searched patent-litigation sources (Justia dockets, PACERMonitor, Docket Alarm/Justia Delaware & Minnesota listings, Unified Patents-style aggregators, Lexology's monthly retail patent litigation reports, CAFC/PTAB resources) for litigation involving US 9,539,216 B2 ("Multi-phase, multi-compartment, capsular delivery apparatus and methods for using same," inventor Fred H. Miller, assignee InnerCap Technologies, Inc.).

Bottom line: I did not find any litigation in which US 9,539,216 B2 is identified as an asserted patent. What exists is a 2026 campaign by the patent's owner, InnerCap Technologies, Inc., against retailers/sellers — but the docket filings and litigation reports identify the patent-in-suit as U.S. Patent No. 7,670,612 B2, not the '216 patent (the '612 and '216 patents are in the same family — same title, same inventor, common priority to 2002-04-10 — so the '216 patent may also be implicated, but I could not confirm that from any source).

⚠️ Note on dates: your prompt states the current date is April 26, 2026, but the sources returned filings dated after that (through mid-2026), so I am reporting them as retrieved. Please verify against PACER before relying on any date.

Litigation located (InnerCap Technologies campaign)

1. INNERCAP Technologies, Inc. v. Walmart Inc.

• Plaintiff: INNERCAP Technologies, Inc.
• Defendant: Walmart Inc.
• Jurisdiction: [U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Judge Jennifer L. Hall](/courts/district-of-delaware-judge)
• Case No.: 1:26-cv-00488
• Filed: April 27, 2026 (complaint entered 4/28/2026); 35 U.S.C. § 271 / NOS 830
• Patent identified in the Report to the Commissioner of Patents: US 7,670,612 B2
• Status: On 8/24/2026 the case was stayed pending completion of InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Natals, Inc., 26-00823 (JLH) and InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Nouri Life, Inc., 26-00903 (JLH).
• Sources: https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/64372817/INNERCAP_Technologies,_Inc_v_Walmart_Inc ; https://gaeflexstaging-dot-docketupdate.appspot.com/cases/Delaware_District_Court/1--26-cv-00488/INNERCAP_Technologies_Inc._v._Walmart_Inc/

2. Innercap Technologies, Inc. v. Target Corporation

• Plaintiff: Innercap Technologies, Inc. (counsel: Bradford, Andresen, Norrie & Camarotto)
• Defendant: Target Corporation d/b/a Target
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota, District Judge Nancy E. Brasel; Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz
• Case No.: 0:26-cv-02427
• Filed: April 30, 2026; 15 U.S.C. § 1126 (NOS 830)
• Patent identified: US 7,670,612 B2 ("Multi-phase, multi-compartment capsular delivery apparatus and methods for using same") — accused products are the "Ritual" vitamin line
• Status: Open/pending (as of the dockets retrieved)
• Sources: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/minnesota/mndce/0:2026cv02427/[233657](/patent/233657) ; https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9c3d0752-c85a-4e24-ac13-acc1b747362e

3. InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Natals, Inc.

• Plaintiff: InnerCap Technologies, Inc.
• Defendant: Natals, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Judge Jennifer L. Hall
• Case No.: 1:26-cv-00823
• Filed: July 8, 2026; NOS 830 Patent
• Status: Open (this case is the lead case to which the Walmart action was stayed)
• Source: https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ded/1:26-cv-00823/innercap-tech-inc-v-natals-inc

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

• Plaintiff: InnerCap Technologies, Inc.
• Defendant: Nouri Life, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Judge Jennifer L. Hall
• Case No.: 26-00903 (1:26-cv-00903 JLH)
• Filing date: Not confirmed in the sources retrieved
• Status: Open; listed in the Walmart stay order as a case on which the stay depends
• Source: referenced in D. Del. 1:26-cv-00488, Dkt. 19 (8/24/2026)

5. Natals, Inc. d/b/a Ritual v. InnerCap Technologies, Inc. (declaratory judgment)

• Plaintiff: Natals, Inc. d/b/a Ritual (counsel: Melissa N. Eubanks, VGC LLP)
• Defendant: InnerCap Technologies, Inc.
• Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court for the Central District of California
• Case No.: 2:26-cv-05696
• Cause: 28 U.S.C. § 2201 Declaratory Judgment (NOS 830)
• Filed: 2026 (docket shows late May 2026)
• Status: Open; a Notice of Pendency of Other Actions was filed — i.e., it is the mirror DJ action to InnerCap's Delaware suit against Natals
• Source: https://cdn.pacermonitor.com/public/case/64868909/Natals,_Inc_dba_Ritual_v_InnerCap_Technologies,_Inc_

Important caveats

1. No case was confirmed to assert US 9,539,216 B2 specifically. The Delaware Walmart docket's statutory notice names only US 7,670,612 B2, and the Lexology May 2026 retail report lists 7,670,612 for the Target action. The '216 patent is a later continuation in the same family (the family includes US 7,670,612, US 8,361,497, US 9,241,911, and US 9,539,216, all sharing title and priority to 2002-04-10). If any of these complaints also assert the '216 patent, it was not reflected in the secondary sources I could retrieve, and InnerCap may amend to add it later.
2. I found no CAFC appeal, no ITC Section 337 action, no PTAB post-grant proceeding (IPR/PGR), and no foreign litigation tied to US 9,539,216.
3. A February 2026 report — "Federal Circuit Affirms Abstractness Of Patent Asserted Against Walmart" (Mealey's) — surfaced in my search, but that involves a § 101 abstractness ruling by a Texas district judge against a technology company, which does not match InnerCap's nutraceutical-capsule patents. I do not identify it as an InnerCap/'216 case and mention it only to explain why a Walmart-related headline appeared.
4. InnerCap Technologies appears as the current assignee/owner of record for the '216 patent, so any future assertion of the '216 patent would most likely appear as an InnerCap Technologies case in D. Del. or D. Minn.

Recommendation: If you need a definitive answer on whether '216 itself has been asserted, pull the actual complaints in D. Del. 1:26-cv-00488, 1:26-cv-00823, and 1:26-cv-00903, and D. Minn. 0:26-cv-02427 (Exhibits A and the AO-120 patent notices), which will list every patent-in-suit. I could not access those exhibits directly.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before writing anything.

Let me chase the family litigation flag and any petition naming InnerCap as patent owner.

Important lead: an IPR citation naming Innercap as patent owner. Let me pin down the proceeding and its subject patent.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 9539216: 0. The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block (USPTO ODP) reports no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming US 9539216 as the challenged patent, and my independent web searches (Google Patents family page, PTAB E2E document hits, docket aggregators, and law-firm IPR compilations) surfaced no petition ever filed against the '216 — so the breakdown is: active 0 / claims invalidated 0 / claims sustained 0 / settled 0 / institution denied 0. The defensive posture this gives a defendant is neither "hardened patent" nor "claims are dead": it is the rarer third posture — the '216 has never been tested at the Board, and the record indicates it expired (anticipated expiration 2023-04-09, legal status "Expired - Lifetime"), meaning a present-day demand letter citing the '216 is asserting an expired patent against current conduct. The one Innercap AIA trial that does exist — IPR2013-00331, Capsugel Belgium NV v. Innercap Technologies, Inc. — was filed against the sibling patent US 8,361,497, not the '216, and is covered below as family context only.

No proceedings to rank

There is no petition to put at the top of the list. I will not manufacture one. What follows is (a) the verified negative finding for the '216 and (b) the one real family proceeding, clearly labeled as not a proceeding on this patent.

IPR2013-00331 — Capsugel Belgium NV v. Innercap Technologies, Inc. ⚠️ NOT a proceeding on US 9539216

• Type: Inter Partes Review (AIA trial). Challenged patent: US 8,361,497 ("Multi-phase, multi-compartment, capsular delivery apparatus and methods for using the same") — a sibling in the same 2002-04-10 priority family. This is not a proceeding against US 9539216, which did not exist in 2013 (the '216 issued 2017-01-10 from application 15/005,508, filed 2016-01-25).
• Filed: 2013-06-06 (per the Oblon TC-1600 2013 IPR compilation, http://www.oblon.com/content/uploads/2018/02/TC-1600-2013-IPRs.pdf — a secondary source; the date is not from a primary PTAB record I retrieved, so treat as provisional pending E2E confirmation).
• Status: Reported as Instituted, with outcome "Claims disclaimed" (Oblon table). I could not retrieve the Final Written Decision or the termination paper in this pass; whether the case ended by patent owner's statutory disclaimer under 37 C.F.R. § 1.321, by adverse judgment, or by a merits ruling that canceled the challenged claims is not verified — do not state otherwise. Verify in PTAB E2E: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/
• Judge panel: Not retrieved. Verify in E2E.
• Petition grounds: Form of the challenge not verified. Notably, the institution decision (Paper 9, dated 2013-12-09) is cited repeatedly by later petitioners for the holding that a pharmaceutical product cannot itself form the basis of an IPR ground, because § 311(b) limits IPR to "patents or printed publications." See Capsugel Belgium NV v. Innercap Techs., IPR2013-00331, Paper 9 at 15 (P.T.A.B. Dec. 9, 2013), cited in later PTAB filings (e.g., https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1547727](/patent/1547727)/download-documents).
• Institution decision: Instituted; Paper 9 (2013-12-09) also rejected the obviousness challenge premised on a prior pharmaceutical product on the § 311(b) ground above.
• Final Written Decision: Not retrieved; do not cite an FWD for this proceeding without checking E2E.
• Settlement / termination: Reported as terminated with claims disclaimed. Terms, if any, unknown.
• Appeal: No Federal Circuit appeal located.
• Defensive value: Indirect. It establishes (i) that Innercap patents have drawn an AIA challenge from a well-resourced competitor (Capsugel, now Lonza), and (ii) useful precedent that product-based § 103 attacks are off the table in IPR — but it tells you nothing about the validity of the '216 claims, and creates no § 315(e)(2) estoppel running against a party asserting defenses in a case about the '216.

Related non-PTAB context you should have (family enforcement)

The patent being asserted today is the '612, not the '216. Innercap Technologies' 2026 filings identify US 7,670,612 — the parent in the same family:

• InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Natals, Inc., D. Del. 1:26-cv-00823 (filed 2026-04-27/28) — https://www.pacermonitor.com/public/case/65590158/InnerCap_Technologies,_Inc_v_Natals,_Inc
• InnerCap Tech Inc v. Walmart Inc, D. Del. 1:26-cv-00488 (filed 2026-04-27), asserting '612 claim 33 against "Ritual" and "Daily Nouri" capsule-in-capsule supplements — https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ded/1:26-cv-00488/doc/analysis/1
• Innercap Technologies, Inc. v. Target Corporation, D. Minn. 0:26-cv-02427 (filed 2026-04-30), Judge Nancy E. Brasel / Magistrate Judge David T. Schultz — https://dockets.justia.com/docket/minnesota/mndce/0:2026cv02427/[233657](/patent/233657)
• InnerCap Tech Inc v. Nouri Life Inc, D. Del. 1:26-cv-00903 (filed 2026-07-24) — https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/dct/ded/1:26-cv-00903/innercap-tech-inc-v-nouri-life-inc

Per the May 2026 retail-patent roundup, Innercap is now classified as a frequent filer in the retail-supplement space (https://www.lexology.com/library/detail.aspx?g=9c3d0752-c85a-4e24-ac13-acc1b747362e). No PTAB petition has yet been filed against the '612 in any of these four 2026 actions as of the records retrieved.

Strategic summary

Claim status on the '216: 100% UNTESTED. Not one claim of US 9539216 has been canceled, confirmed, or even challenged in an AIA trial. There is no FWD to point to, no claim-level disposition to quote, and no statutory disclaimer on record for this patent. Anyone telling you "the '216 claims are invalidated" is inventing a proceeding. The only claim-level knockouts anywhere in this family happened in the '497 track (IPR2013-00331) and, to the extent you're litigating the '612, in the Capsugel litigation record — neither transfers to the '216.

Estoppel landscape: there is none on the '216. Because no IPR/PGR ever issued against the '216, no petitioner is barred by § 315(e)(2) from raising anything, and no patent-owner-side narrowing via disclaimer or amendment occurred. Every prior-art ground — including all art cited on the face of the patent (US 6,380,175; US 7,670,612; US 8,361,497; US 9,241,911; Tramer et al., BMJ 2001) and all art that a reasonably diligent searcher would find — remains fully available on the § 102/§ 103 side. That said, the practical significance is limited by two hard facts: (1) the '216's anticipated expiration is 2023-04-09 with legal status "Expired - Lifetime," so it can support only past-damages theories for conduct before that date; and (2) PGR is unavailable as a matter of law (the patent claims pre-AIA 2002-04-10 priority, and the § 321 post-grant window closed nine months after the 2017-01-10 grant), and CBM is unavailable because the transitional program sunset on 2020-09-16. IPR is the only AIA vehicle, and IPR remains available even against an expired patent — though the Board construes expired claims under Phillips, not the BRI standard, which changes the claim-construction posture in your favor.

Pattern signals. One petitioner has ever attacked an Innercap patent: Capsugel Belgium NV (IPR2013-00331, against the '497). There is no multiple-petition pattern against the '216, no defensive aggregator (no Unified Patents, RPX, or similar) in the chain that I could find, and no Federal Circuit appeal by Innercap from any PTAB decision on the '216 — because there is no such decision. Innercap's enforcement posture instead is serial district-court filing (D. Del. ×3, D. Minn. ×1) in 2026 on the '612, which is the classic pre-litigation pattern that precedes IPRs: § 315(b) clocks are now running on Natals, Walmart, Target, and Nouri Life, each with a one-year window from service of the complaint to petition the Board.

Recommended next steps

1. If you received a demand letter citing US 9539216 — check the date of the accused conduct. The ODP/Google Patents record for the '216 shows "Expired - Lifetime" and an anticipated expiration of 2023-04-09 (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9539216/en). A demand premised on the '216 covering current sales is asserting an expired patent; ask for the asserted claims and the damages period in writing before responding on the merits. If the demand actually cites the '612 (as Innercap's 2026 complaints do), you have a live dispute and should stop treating the '216 as the battleground.
2. If you are a defendant on the '612 or '497, you cannot rely on any PTAB result from the '216 — there is none. The strongest invalidity ammunition in this family comes from the district-court record in the Capsugel litigation and from IPR2013-00331's institution decision (Paper 9, 2013-12-09), which is a limitation on your IPR strategy: § 311(b) means you cannot build a ground on a prior product, only on patents and printed publications.
3. If you intend to petition, mind § 315(b). For each of the four 2026 complaints, the one-year bar runs from service of the complaint. Confirm the service date in PACER, then calendar the petition deadline. Statutory trial deadline is one year from institution (35 U.S.C. § 316(a)(11)); institution decision is due within six months of the petition's filing date.
4. If you want to challenge the expired '216 itself (for example, to defeat a past-damages theory or to clear a cloud for a product line), your only AIA option is IPR, and you should expect Phillips construction. Consider whether an ex parte reexamination or a declaratory-judgment invalidity count is the cleaner vehicle for an expired patent.
5. Verification I could not complete, so you should: the primary PTAB E2E record for IPR2013-00331 (filing date, panel, institution scope, and the exact termination mechanism for the "claims disclaimed" outcome) — https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/. I am reporting that outcome from a secondary compilation and flagging it as unverified rather than asserting it.

I'll research this patent's ownership record before constructing the timeline. Let me run several searches.

Now let me dig into the assignment record specifics and the litigation/company status.

Ownership Record — US 9,539,216 B2

Verification status up front (read this first): I could not open the USPTO Assignment Center record itself during this session. The assignment facts below are drawn from the Google Patents legal-events panel for US9539216B2 (fetched 2026-09-23), PubChem's patent record, and uspto.report/Justia grant records. The Google Patents panel does not display the reel/frame numbers in the text I retrieved, and I will not invent them. Anywhere a reel/frame would normally go, I say "not retrieved." Pull the raw reel/frame at Assignment Center by patent number 9539216 (or at the legacy Assignment Search) before relying on this for a filing.

Inventors

• US 9,539,216 names a single inventor, Fred H. Miller. That is narrower than the rest of the family: the co-morbid-diseases sibling application (Ser. No. 12/719,993, filed 2010-03-09, pub. 2010/02235254) names three — Frederick H. Miller, James H. Ruble (Bountiful, UT) and Gary D.E. Pierce (Kaysville, UT). The co-inventors do not appear on the '216.
• Unusual-pattern check: negative. Miller is the assignee's own CEO, and the assignment to InnerCap was executed on the filing date itself (2016-01-25). There is no evidence of inventors departing the assignee within 12 months of filing, and no evidence of a portfolio fire-sale preceding the 2016 continuation. The single-inventor structure is explained by the continuation lineage, not by attrition.

Original assignee

• INNERCAP Technologies, Inc., St. Petersburg, Florida (a Florida corporation — the Google Patents reissue/assignment note states "Owner name: INNERCAP TECHNOLOGIES, INC., FLORIDA").
• Line of business: drug-delivery / specialty pharmaceutical company. Its commercial platform is branded NOVACAP®, a two-piece capsule-in-capsule, multi-phase delivery system.
• Did it ship a product embodying the claims? Unclear, and this matters. InnerCap's own CEO stated in 2013 that "INNERCAP's multi-phase, multi-compartment technology has been commercially manufactured and validated in several products" — but the framing throughout is enabling branded manufacturers ("creates real value to consumers and branded manufacturers"). That is the profile of a B2B delivery-system licensor/developer, not a company selling consumer goods under its own label. I found no evidence InnerCap itself sells a finished supplement or drug product.
• Current status: InnerCap Technologies is still an active litigant as of 2026 — it is the named plaintiff in at least four matters filed this year (below). It has not been shown to be acquired, dissolved, or in bankruptcy. It filed a Rule 7.1 disclosure stating no parent corporation and no publicly held corporation owning 10% or more — i.e., a privately held, independent company, not a subsidiary of a larger NPE platform.
• Family: US 7,670,612 (issued 2010-03-02), US 8,361,497 (issued 2013-01-29), US 9,539,216 (issued 2017-01-10), plus US 9,241,911 and foreign members (CA, AU, NZ).

Assignment timeline

Only one assignment is recorded against this patent.

• 2016-01-25 (executed) / recorded 2016-01-25 — Reel/frame: not retrieved (Google Patents legal events shows the record; the reel/frame is not in the retrieved text)
  • Conveyance: Assignment of assignors' interest ("ASSIGNMENT OF ASSIGNORS INTEREST (SEE DOCUMENT FOR DETAILS)")
  • Assignor: Fred H. Miller (sole inventor)
  • Assignee: INNERCAP Technologies, Inc. (St. Petersburg, FL)
  • Correspondent: Not retrieved. The firm publicly identified as InnerCap's patent counsel is Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC (Cliff Davidson, Esq., New York, NY), per InnerCap's own 2010 and 2013 grant press releases. I could not confirm that Davidson is the recorded assignment correspondent on this cover sheet — press-release prosecution counsel and assignment correspondent are different fields and are often different firms. Because there is only one recorded assignment in this chain, there is no recurrence to flag and no basis for a repeat-correspondent signal on this patent.
  • Context: Employment/obligation-driven in-house capture — the inventor-assignee agreement was executed and recorded on the same day the continuation application was filed. Not a sale, not a securitization, not a transfer to a third party.

Explicit finding: there are no post-issuance assignments of US 9,539,216. No security agreement, no merger, no change of name, no assignment to any IP-holding or licensing entity, and no release. On the recorded record, INNERCAP Technologies, Inc. is both the original and the current owner, and it is the entity that would have to be named in any suit. (Consistent with this, InnerCap itself is the named plaintiff, not a licensee or transferee, in the 2026 actions.)

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9539216
    2002 : Provisional priority filed
    2003 : PCT application filed
    2010 : Parent patent 7670612 issues
    2013 : Sibling patent 8361497 issues
    2016 : Continuation application filed
         : Miller assigns rights to InnerCap Technologies
    2017 : US 9539216 issues
    2023 : Patent term expires
    2026 : InnerCap sues Target Walmart Nouri

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Threshold point that shapes every call below: the chain here is a single link — inventor to the original operating assignee. None of the classic NPE tells (shell LLCs, asserter platforms, cascading transfers, securitized holdings) can appear in a one-link chain, and none did.

1. Shell-entity transfer — NOT PRESENT. U.S. Patent 9,539,216 has never moved off INNERCAP Technologies, Inc. No "IP / Holdings / Licensing / Ventures" suffix entity appears anywhere in the record. Note the contrast with entities that do exhibit this: unrelated records surfaced in the same search show the pattern cleanly — e.g. "Encap Technologies Inc. → Intellectual Ventures Holding 88 LLC," recorded at Reel 029228 / Frame 0379. Nothing of that shape exists here. (No reel/frame to cite for the negative, because there is no second record.)

2. Known asserter in the chain — NOT PRESENT (with an emerging caveat). InnerCap Technologies does not match any enumerated asserter — not Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN/Mosaid/Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or an Erich Spangenberg vehicle. But this must be stated fairly: InnerCap has become a serial patent plaintiff in 2026, and the May 2026 Retail Patent Litigation Report names it among the month's "frequent filers" alongside Nearby Systems and SmartOrder. Recorded 2026 filings:

   • Innercap Technologies, Inc. v. Target Corporation, 0:26-cv-02427 (D. Minn., filed 2026-04-30) — asserting US 7,670,612
   • InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Walmart Inc., 1:26-cv-00488 (D. Del.) — asserting US 7,670,612 (accused: Ritual prenatal and Daily Nouri probiotic capsule-in-capsule products)
   • InnerCap Technologies, Inc. v. Nouri Life, Inc., 1:26-cv-00903 (D. Del., filed 2026-07-24)
   • Natals, Inc. d/b/a Ritual v. InnerCap Technologies, Inc., 2:26-cv-05696 (C.D. Cal.) — declaratory judgment action brought against InnerCap by the Ritual brand

   That is a genuine enforcement campaign, but it is a plaintiff-side behavior finding, not a chain-of-title finding, and it does not involve this patent (see signal 5).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — NOT PRESENT / UNVERIFIABLE. With one recorded assignment there is no repetition to detect. The likely candidate firm, Davidson, Davidson & Kappel, LLC (Cliff Davidson, NYC), appears only via InnerCap's own press releases about the '612 and '497 grants; I could not verify it as the Assignment Center correspondent of record for this patent. A single appearance would not be a finding even if confirmed — the signal is recurrence, and there is no chain here to recur across.

4. Cascading transfers — NOT PRESENT. Zero consecutive assignments, let alone multiple transfers through chained LLCs inside 24 months. The "family has litigation" flag on Google Patents (Darts-IP family 33567170) reflects the family's assertion history, not a transfer chain.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — NOT PRESENT, and structurally impossible here. The only assignment is dated 2016-01-25; the earliest 2026 suit is dated 2026-04-30. That is a ~10-year gap — the opposite of a designed pre-suit transfer. Additionally, US 9,539,216 does not appear in the pleadings of the 2026 campaign: every complaint I could inspect asserts US 7,670,612, and the Lexology retail roundup lists only the '612. This is expected, not anomalous: Google Patents shows US 9,539,216 as Expired – Lifetime, with anticipated expiration 2023-04-09 (20 years from the 2003-04-09 PCT filing, the '216 being a continuation of that lineage despite issuing in 2017). The patent's enforceable life ended roughly three years before the assertion campaign began, so it could not be asserted in 2026. Anyone treating the Darts-IP "family has litigation" flag as evidence that this patent was asserted would be misreading it.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — NOT PRESENT. No Chapter 7 or Chapter 11 proceeding involving InnerCap appears anywhere in the record. InnerCap is an active plaintiff as of mid-2026, which is inconsistent with a post-liquidation ownership posture.

7. Privateering — NOT PRESENT. The signal requires an operating company transferring to an NPE that asserts on its behalf. Here the asserted family is owned and asserted by the same entity — InnerCap sues in its own name. There is no hidden principal behind a nominal plaintiff, no SEC-documented transfer, and no Patent Progress/EFF coverage of the kind this signal contemplates. InnerCap's Rule 7.1 statement confirms no parent and no 10% corporate owner.

8. Defensive aggregator — NOT PRESENT. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT Network, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at an asserting operating company. Inverse signal (neutralization) does not apply.

Adjacent observation (not a scored signal): InnerCap's Delaware filings are handled by Farnan LLP (Brian E. Farnan / Michael J. Farnan), and the Minnesota action by Bradford Andresen Norrie & Camarotto (Mark Bradford). Farnan LLP is widely used by plaintiffs in D. Del. patent actions, but using Delaware counsel is a venue choice made by hundreds of operating companies; it is not evidence of a shell or of NPE status, and I am not treating it as such.

Verdict

Insufficient data — the Assignment Center record for US 9,539,216 consists of exactly one entry, the 2016-01-25 inventor-to-assignee assignment executed on the filing date, so there is no post-issuance chain to evaluate, and every scored NPE signal comes back not present on the record available to me. The correct reading is that the original operating assignee, INNERCAP Technologies, Inc. (St. Petersburg, FL), still owns the patent and asserts it under its own name, as confirmed by the 2026 complaints in which InnerCap — not any LLC, licensee, or transferee — is the plaintiff. The one live pattern worth monitoring is not a title pattern but a litigation pattern: InnerCap launched a multi-defendant campaign in 2026 against Target, Walmart and Nouri Life on the sibling US 7,670,612, while US 9,539,216 expired on 2023-04-09 and is absent from the pleadings.

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 9539216) — or the legacy interface at https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html. Retrieve the reel/frame and the recorded correspondent from the cover sheet; both are missing from the sources I could reach, and I have deliberately left them blank rather than fill them in.