Corey Casey

I'll research this attorney before drafting.

Let me verify the key case and IPR details.

Let me pin down which side Polsinelli represents and verify the district court posture.

Corey M. Casey, Pharm.D. — Shareholder, Polsinelli (Kansas City); registered patent attorney (USPTO Reg. No. 66,950).

Focus areas. Casey's practice is centered on Hatch-Waxman/ANDA patent litigation and patent prosecution, with a technical focus on small-molecule pharmaceuticals and drug formulations, plus biosimilar due diligence and medical-device work. His tracked litigation is in the intranasal benzodiazepine space (diazepam nasal spray), consistent with firm and ranking descriptions of his pharma/biotech/chemical practice. He is a Doctor of Pharmacy and registered pharmacist, which firm and third-party profiles (BTI, IAM Patent 1000, National Law Review) consistently tie to his formulation-focused practice; IAM Patent 1000 lists him as "Recommended – Prosecution" in Missouri for 2025.

Side preference. Public filings place him on the generic/ANDA-filer side: Polsinelli is counsel for the Padagis defendants (Padagis LLC, Padagis US LLC, Padagis Israel Pharmaceuticals Ltd.) in Neurelis, Inc. v. Padagis LLC et al., and Polsinelli attorneys (James Murphy, Corey Casey) appear as back-up counsel for Padagis as petitioner in the related PTAB proceedings. The two tracked "plaintiff" and "defendant" entries therefore appear to be two faces of the same Padagis–Neurelis dispute — Padagis as the accused ANDA defendant in district court (where it counterclaimed against Neurelis) and Padagis as IPR petitioner. This is defensive/invalidity work for a generic filer, not NPE/PAE prosecution; his own bio states he has represented both brand and generic companies.

Firm context. Polsinelli throughout his registered practice, including the predecessor name Polsinelli Shughart; no prior-firm history surfaced in searchable sources. He is a member of the firm's national Hatch-Waxman practice and Science and Technology Group. (Law360's attorney page also lists a July 2024 D.D.C. filing, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corp. v. Becerra; his role and the subject matter of that case could not be verified, so it is noted only as a possible appearance.)

Notable matters. Neurelis v. Padagis (D. Del. C.A. No. 24-562-MN, Judge Noreika) is a consolidated Valtoco® (diazepam nasal spray) ANDA action asserting U.S. Patents 8,895,546; 11,241,414; and 11,793,786, later joined by Neurelis v. Padagis, Nos. 25-1228 and 26-401 (patents 12,324,852 / 12,337,061 / 12,521,400). On the PTAB side, Casey is back-up counsel in the companion IPRs IPR2025-00464, -465, and -466, where the Acting Director's July 16, 2025 decision declining discretionary denial (finding the examiner's priority-date conclusion "directly contradict[ed]" the earlier PTAB ruling in IPR2019-00451 on the related '876 patent, which the Federal Circuit affirmed) was designated informative on January 9, 2026. Those IPRs were instituted in September 2025, with a projected final written decision date of September 17, 2026; I found no verified verdicts or judgments, and the district court matters remain pending. A 2019 Missouri Lawyers Weekly profile describes roughly two weeks of trial work in a pharmaceutical patent case in the Eastern District of Texas and a negotiated settlement in a generic pharmaceutical infringement matter, neither of which is identified by case name.

PTAB/IPR. Yes — he appears regularly in pharma/medical-device IPRs, currently as back-up counsel in the three Padagis petitions; his practice bio states he has served as counsel in multiple IPR matters.

Bar/education. Admitted Missouri (2009); J.D., University of Missouri–Kansas City (2009); Pharm.D., UMKC (2006); registered pharmacist.

Verification note: Bar admissions, education, and firm affiliation are corroborated by multiple secondary sources and docket filings. Litigation outcomes for the active Neurelis/Padagis matters were not available; nothing above should be read as a result in those cases.