What is the current docket status and disposition of the Epitracker/Seraphina v. Gundry patent lawsuit?

1. The complaint and the players: patented dolphin-derived fatty-acid supplement vs. a high-profile defendant

Epitracker and its Seraphina Therapeutics division sued after alleging Dr. Gundry and a supplier worked to create a rival supplement that infringed U.S. Patent rights tied to Seraphina’s Fatty15 product, framing the dispute as a classic inventor-versus-customer patent conflict rooted in proprietary formulations developed from dolphin-longevity research (Bloomberg Law reporting on the complaint filed Oct. 18, 2023) ^{[4] [2]}.

2. Filing trail and docket basics: federal filing, summons, and early pleadings are visible

The case was filed in the Central District of California on October 18, 2023; initial filings visible on CourtListener and Justia include the complaint, AO-120 patent-notice filings, and a certificate/notice of interested parties—typical opening docket activity in a patent case ^{[1] [2]}. Docket-monitoring services like PacerMonitor and DocketAlarm mirror those records and list counsel for plaintiffs and defendants, including counterclaims and named individuals ^{[5] [6]}.

3. Closure reported but the disposition detail is missing from public summaries

RPX Insight explicitly lists the case as “closed” on December 27, 2024 ^[3]. That notation signals a terminal docket event, but RPX’s public summary does not attach the operative document explaining whether the closure followed a settlement, stipulated dismissal, judgment after motion, or other disposition—none of which are included in the materials provided here ^{[3] [2]}.

4. Defense posture and counterclaims: the record shows counter-litigation activity

Docket summaries and case portals indicate counterclaims and active defense entries—Steven R. Gundry and Agoura Health Products are identified as counterclaimants/defendants in the public docket snapshots, which suggests the litigation involved reciprocal pleading rather than a one-sided complaint ^{[6] [5]}. The presence of counterclaims often portends negotiations, motions practice, or settlement, but the sources do not record a final adjudication text ^[6].

5. What the available sources do not say—and why that matters

Open-source summaries and aggregators confirm filing, parties, and a December 27, 2024 closure tag, but none of the supplied documents reproduces a dismissal order, settlement agreement, consent decree, or final judgment explaining the legal or monetary resolution—leaving the precise disposition (settlement terms, dismissal with prejudice, or judgment on the merits) unconfirmed in the record available for this report ^{[3] [2]}.

6. Plausible explanations and the next steps for confirmation

Given typical federal patent litigation practices—early discovery demands, counterclaims, and commercial-stake incentives—closure often follows a private settlement or stipulated dismissal; alternatively, it could reflect judicial disposition after motion practice. To confirm the exact disposition, retrieval of the Central District of California’s official docket via PACER or an unredacted RPX/RPX Insight document would be required; public summaries here stop short of supplying that dispositive filing ^{[2] [3]}.

7. Context and competing narratives: commercial rivalry and reputational stakes

Reporting in Bloomberg Law frames the dispute as a small biotech asserting intellectual-property rights against a well-known nutrition entrepreneur, a dynamic that combines patent law with reputational and marketplace stakes for both sides—a context that helps explain why parties might prefer a confidential settlement rather than a public judgment ^[4]. The record provided does not indicate which side, if either, achieved a public legal vindication.