What lawsuits have been filed against Dr. Gundry or his clinic and what were their outcomes?
Executive summary
Dr. Steven R. Gundry has been the subject of at least one identifiable civil lawsuit alleging intellectual-property infringement and has appeared as a named physician in federal court filings; public reporting and regulatory complaint pages also document numerous consumer grievances but do not substitute for filed suits [1] [2] [3]. Available documents in the provided reporting do not establish final, publicized resolutions for the major matters referenced, and several potentially relevant litigation records are behind paywalls or missing from the dataset [4] [2].
1. Patent infringement suit: companies Epitracker and Seraphina sue Gundry over a supplement
In October 2023, Bloomberg Law reported that Epitracker Inc. and Seraphina Therapeutics Inc. — two life‑sciences companies that share a San Diego address — filed suit alleging that Dr. Steven R. Gundry purchased Seraphina’s Fatty15 product and, together with the supplier, created a competing product that infringed a U.S. patent, accusing Gundry of patent infringement and related claims [1]. The Bloomberg Law story describes the plaintiffs as asserting proprietary rights in a formulation and names Gundry as the target of that intellectual‑property litigation [1]. The reporting in the dataset does not include the complaint text, docket number, or a publicly posted final judgment, so the current disposition of that matter cannot be confirmed from the supplied sources [1].
2. Federal court filing references Gundry as treating physician in a death‑related case — limited public detail
A U.S. district court “Findings and Recommendation” PDF in the dataset mentions Dr. Gundry in connection with having been the treating physician at the time of a patient’s death, indicating he was referenced in federal litigation documents [2]. The single accessible snippet shows his role as a treating physician was part of the court’s record, but the excerpt in the provided material does not include the underlying complaint, claims against Gundry (if any), or a clear final ruling against him; therefore it is not possible, from the supplied document, to state definitively whether a malpractice claim was adjudicated or settled and what the outcome was [2].
3. Consumer complaints and cease‑and‑desist activity paint a contested public profile but are not court judgments
The Better Business Bureau hosts numerous consumer complaints about Gundry MD’s supplements and refund practices, reflecting extensive customer dissatisfaction and disputes over a “90‑day money‑back guarantee,” but those entries are consumer complaints rather than filed lawsuits reported in the supplied sources [3]. Independent critics and bloggers have also clashed with Gundry’s team: a skeptical cardiology blogger reported receiving a cease‑and‑desist letter from Gundry’s lawyers after critical coverage, illustrating litigation‑adjacent tactics to police criticism, although that was described as a letter rather than a filed lawsuit in the public account [5]. Consumer‑fraud and skeptical sites characterize Gundry’s commercial practices and medical claims as controversial, but those sites do not document formal judicial outcomes in the material provided [6] [5].
4. Records behind paywalls and inconsistent reporting limit a definitive litigation map
Research flags additional litigation resources — for example, litigation document repositories that require logins or subscription access — which implies there may be further filed matters or detailed dockets involving Gundry or his businesses, but those pages are inaccessible in the supplied dataset and cannot be relied on to state concrete outcomes [4]. Wikipedia and other secondary sources summarize controversies and disputes around Gundry’s scientific claims and public reception, but they do not replace primary court records and do not, in the provided snippets, list a comprehensive roster of lawsuits and their final dispositions [7].
5. Bottom line: identifiable suit and multiple complaints, but outcomes remain uncertain in available reporting
The reporting at hand documents a specific patent lawsuit brought by Epitracker and Seraphina against Gundry alleging infringement [1], cites a federal court document that references him as a treating physician in a death‑related matter [2], and shows extensive consumer complaints and at least one cease‑and‑desist episode [3] [5]. However, the dataset does not include full dockets, settlement notices, judgments, or authoritative case closures for these items, so definitive outcomes for the notable claims cannot be confirmed from the supplied sources alone [1] [2] [4].