Untitled case

Case Overview: Aerin Medical Inc. & The Foundry, LLC v. Neurent Medical Inc. & Neurent Medical Ltd. — Federal Circuit Appeal No. 25-2121 (patent-in-suit: U.S. Patent No. 10,894,011)

Parties and accused product. This is a competitor patent fight in the intranasal neuromodulation/ENT space. Plaintiffs in the underlying suit are Aerin Medical Inc. (Mountain View, CA — a commercial medtech company marketing the FDA-cleared VivAer® and RhinAer® styluses for nasal airway obstruction and chronic rhinitis) and The Foundry, LLC (Menlo Park, CA — a medical-device incubator/developer and assignee of the Foundry-owned patents-in-suit, with Aerin as exclusive licensee in the nasal-treatment field). Defendants are Neurent Medical Inc. (a Delaware corporation, Braintree, MA) and its Irish parent Neurent Medical Ltd. (Galway, Ireland), a venture-backed startup that raised roughly €30M and launched its NEUROMARK® System — a handheld RF-energy device that treats chronic rhinitis via multi-point disruption of nasal nerves — in limited U.S. markets in February 2023 after obtaining FDA 510(k) clearances in October 2021 and October 2022. The complaint alleges Neurent launched without a license despite infringement notices between 2020 and 2022 (Complaint, Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00756 (D. Del.), available via RPX insight; Independent.ie coverage).

Patents and procedural posture. The D. Del. complaint asserts seven patents; the patent relevant to this appeal is U.S. Patent No. 10,894,011 ("the '011 patent"), "Systems and Methods for Delivery of a Therapeutic Agent," issued January 19, 2021 to inventors Mark E. Deem and Hanson Gifford, assigned to The Foundry, LLC (app. 16/842,209). The '011 claims are directed to systems/methods for treating a nasal condition by applying energy (e.g., RF) to tissue in the nose — technically, an intranasal apparatus that applies energy to disrupt nerves/mucus-producing targets to treat rhinitis. Neurent petitioned for IPR, and in IPR2024-00280 (Neurent Medical Inc. et al. v. The Foundry, LLC), a PTAB panel (APJs Snedden, Mitchell, Majors) instituted review on January 18, 2024 and issued a Final Written Decision on July 21, 2025 determining all challenged claims (1–2, 5, 8–10, 12, 14) unpatentable and dismissing Foundry's motion to exclude (DocketAlarm entry; ipverse.greyb.com). The present matter, Federal Circuit appeal No. 25-2121, most likely corresponds to the patent owner's appeal of that FWD — the docket's caption, filing date, and appellant identity were not directly confirmed via PACER in my searches, so that linkage rests on the case metadata and the PTAB docket's "Final Written Decision – Appealed" status. The underlying district case sits in the District of Delaware before Judge Hall (per Finnegan's case listing; full name not independently confirmed) — venue was proper there because Neurent Medical Inc. is incorporated in Delaware and Neurent Medical Ltd., as a foreign corporation, is subject to venue in any district under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(c)(3).

Why it matters. The case is notable on several fronts. First, the IPR outcome is a significant validity threat to a core Foundry patent asserted in the parallel D. Del. litigation: Neurent argued the '011 claims — although presented as continuations claiming back to a July 2005 provisional — are only entitled to an October 22, 2019 priority date because the nasal-energy subject matter was "new matter" inserted decades later, making it anticipated/obvious over references such as Saadat (U.S. 10,307,200), a 2008 Deem publication, and a Makower/Fang/Edwards-535 combination. An affirmance on appeal would kill the asserted claims; a reversal would revive them mid-litigation, making this a high-stakes, case-dispositive appeal. Second, it reflects a broader pattern of coordinated IPR warfare: Neurent filed a family of IPRs (2024-00275 through -00282, -00669) against the Aerin/Foundry patents, while Aerin has since counter-challenged Neurent's own patent portfolio (e.g., IPR2025-01126 against Neurent's U.S. 12,096,973, where Aerin is petitioner), underscoring the escalating cross-portfolio dispute between competitors in the fast-growing chronic-rhinitis treatment market (affecting roughly one in four Americans, per the complaint and Neurent's own marketing). Finally, for industry observers, the case is a useful study in continuation-prosecution scrutiny, PTAB estoppel dynamics with a stayed/parallel district case, and the strategic use of IPRs by an accused infringer against a smaller patent-owner/licensor structure. Caveat: the specifics of the Federal Circuit docket (caption, briefing schedule, panel) and the FWD's full reasoning were not directly verified from primary sources in this search.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Aerin Medical Inc. & The Foundry, LLC v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al. (D. Del. 1:23-cv-00756-JLH) / IPR2024-00280 / Fed. Cir. No. 25-2121

Scope note. The underlying infringement suit is Aerin Medical Inc. et al. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00756-JLH (D. Del.), in which the patent at issue here — U.S. Patent No. 10,894,011 (the "'011 patent," "Systems and methods for therapeutic nasal treatment," issued 2021-01-19 to Deem et al.; app. 16/842,209; owned by The Foundry, LLC) — is one of eight asserted patents. The case was stayed pending a series of Neurent-filed IPRs, including IPR2024-00280 against the '011 patent. Fed. Cir. No. 25-2121 corresponds to the appeal of that IPR's Final Written Decision. Below is the chronology; where a fact could not be independently verified, I flag it.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (District Court)

• 2023-07-11 — Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC filed the original Complaint in D. Del. against Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., alleging infringement of eight patents (the "Aerin/Foundry Patents") based on Neurent's NEUROMARK® system for treating rhinitis: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,072,597 ('597), 9,415,194 ('194), 10,610,675 ('675), 10,894,011 ('011), 11,033,318 ('318), 11,241,271 ('271), 11,679,077 ('077), and 11,766,286 ('286). Case assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams, later reassigned to Judge Jennifer L. Hall. (Sources: Justia docket 1:2023cv00756; Amended Complaint, Ex. 1035 in IPR2024-00279, DocketAlarm; Joint Status Report re Stipulated Schedule, filed in 23-756.)
• 2023 (fall) — Amended Complaint filed (D.I. 17) asserting the same eight patents, with claim charts attached; this is the operative infringement pleading.
• 2024-03-15 — Neurent filed its Answer to Amended Complaint and Counterclaims (D.I. 40), asserting tortious interference and unfair competition counterclaims (and denying infringement/validity). (Sources: CourtListener docket; Aerin's opening brief re motion to dismiss counterclaims, D.I. 94.)

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• Motion to dismiss (partial) — denied. Neurent moved to dismiss portions of the Amended Complaint (D.I. 19/20), arguing the indirect/willful infringement counts lacked plausible factual allegations. On 2024-06-05, Judge Hall entered an Oral Order (D.I. 74) denying the motion, reasoning that the complaint's allegations of pre-suit notice, the parties' competitor status, Neurent's citations of the patents in its own PTO proceedings, references to Aerin's marked product in Neurent's FDA filings, and the attached claim charts sufficiently pled knowledge and infringement. (Source: D. Del. D.I. 74, dated 2024-06-05.)
• Motion to dismiss counterclaims (first iteration) — denied as moot. Aerin/Foundry moved to dismiss Neurent's original counterclaims (D.I. 58/59). On 2024-07-08, the court denied the motion as moot (D.I. 82) after Neurent filed First Amended Counterclaims (D.I. 81) the same day, which added a patent-infringement counterclaim against Aerin alleging infringement of Neurent's U.S. Patent No. 11,998,262 ('262), plus tortious interference and unfair competition. (Source: D. Del. docket entries 79–84; D.I. 94 opening brief.)
• Motion to dismiss amended counterclaims — pending. On 2024-08-05, Aerin moved to dismiss the First Amended Counterclaims (D.I. 89), arguing the '262 claim is defeated by an on-sale bar (RhinAer® on sale before the '262 priority date) and that the tortious-interference/unfair-competition claims are barred by Noerr–Pennington and inadequately pled. As of the last available filings, that motion remained pending. (Sources: D.I. 89; D.I. 94 opening brief.)
• Motion to dismiss Neurent's separate patent suit — pending. On 2024-09-24, Neurent filed Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc., C.A. No. 24-1070-JLH (D. Del.), asserting U.S. Patent Nos. 12,096,973, 12,096,974, and 12,098,889. Aerin moved to dismiss (24-1070 D.I. 19); the case was later consolidated into 23-756. (Source: Joint Status Report, 23-756.)
• Stay pending IPR — granted. On 2024-08-08 the court entered the parties' stipulation staying the action in its entirety (including the amended-counterclaim '262 issues) until the PTAB issued Final Written Decisions in the IPRs on the Aerin/Foundry patents (D.I. 93, filed 08-12-2024). (Sources: Joint Status Report; D.I. 93.)
• Statutory disclaimer. On 2024-10-24, Aerin statutorily disclaimed all asserted claims of the '597 and '194 patents that Neurent had challenged — removing two of the eight patents from the case. (Source: Joint Status Report, 23-756.)
• Consolidation. On 2025-03-18, the court entered the Stipulation and Order to Consolidate (D.I. 106) consolidating C.A. No. 24-1070 into 23-756, with interim scheduling set. (Source: Joint Status Report; CourtListener docket.)

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• The case did not reach a Markman hearing before the stay. The court entered a Patent Scheduling Order on 2024-03-27 (D.I. 43), but discovery and scheduling were overtaken by the IPRs and the 2024-08-08 stay.
• Post-IPR, scheduling resumed: docket entries in May–September 2025 show claim-construction briefing deadlines and a scheduling order being set/reset (e.g., D.I. 130, 2025-09-12, "SO ORDERED and Set/Reset Claim Construction Briefing and Scheduling Order Deadlines"). No Markman ruling has been issued, and no claim-construction order appears in the record to date. (Source: CourtListener docket 67599357.)

4. Discovery Milestones

• 2024-06-14 — Neurent served Initial Invalidity Contentions and noticed third-party subpoenas to Boston Scientific, Olympus (America and Surgical Technologies), and Smith & Nephew — signaling an invalidity theory centered on prior-art RF ablation/neuromodulation devices. (Source: D. Del. D.I. 76–77.)
• 2024-07-19 — Aerin/Foundry served their Second Set of Interrogatories (Nos. 7–18) and Second Set of RFPs (Nos. 27–105) — extensive merits discovery. (Source: D.I. 86.)
• 2024-07-24 — The court so-ordered a stipulation regarding claim 10 of the '286 patent (D.I. 87), narrowing a discrete issue before the stay. (Source: D.I. 87.)
• 2024-10 to 2025-06 (in the IPRs) — Parallel PTAB discovery included expert depositions (e.g., patent-owner expert Dr. Nicolas Bu-Saba, deposed 2024-10-17 in IPR2024-00280/00279/00669; petitioner expert depositions were also taken), a joint stipulation extending Due Date 3 to 2025-03-04 (2025-01-27), and an oral hearing on 2025-06-17. (Sources: DocketAlarm IPR2024-00280 entries; IPR2024-00279 Ex. 2002; PTACTS stipulation filing.)
• The district court action remained fully stayed during this period, so no further merits discovery occurred in the court case.

5. Trial, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

• No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee award has occurred. The case was stayed before trial and remains in a post-IPR scheduling posture. The "outcome" of the infringement litigation is therefore not yet determined; the dispositive event to date is the IPR outcome and the pending appeal (below).

6. Parallel PTAB Proceedings (IPRs) and Effect on Litigation

• 2024-01-18 — Neurent filed eight IPRs (IPR2024-00275 through -00282) challenging all eight asserted Aerin/Foundry patents. The '011 patent challenge is IPR2024-00280, Neurent Medical Inc. et al. v. The Foundry, LLC (petitioner counsel: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr — Cavanaugh, Stern, Lantier, Smolenski, et al.; patent-owner counsel: Greenberg Traurig — Daley, Araj, Briggs, et al.). A related IPR2024-00281 was later superseded/terminated in favor of IPR2024-00669 (filed 2024-04-03, challenging the '077 patent). (Sources: PTACTS; DocketAlarm; ipverse.greyb.com; Finnegan attorney profile noting IPRs 2024-00275 through -00282 and -00669.)
• 2024-07-23 (institution window) — The Board instituted IPR on the '011 patent (IPR2024-00280 institution decision dated 2024-07-23); per the parties' joint status report, the Board instituted IPRs with respect to all of the asserted Aerin/Foundry patents. (Sources: ipverse.greyb.com; Joint Status Report, 23-756.)
• 2025-07-21 — The Board issued its Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00280 (Paper 41). (Sources: DocketAlarm — "No. 41 Final Written Decision original (P.T.A.B. Jul. 21, 2025)"; PTAB case status "Final Written Decision – Appealed.")
  • Important caveat: I could not retrieve the FWD's merits text from the available search results, so I cannot confirm whether the Board held the challenged '011 claims unpatentable or upheld them. The PTAB status flag ("Appealed") confirms an appeal was taken, but not by whom.
• Effect on the litigation: The 2024-08-08 stay of the entire district action was tied to the IPRs. With the '011 FWD now out (2025-07-21) and on appeal, the district court has begun re-establishing scheduling (claim construction deadlines set/reset in 2025-09), but the case remains effectively on hold pending the Federal Circuit appeals of the IPR decisions.

7. Appeal / Present Posture (Fed. Cir. No. 25-2121)

• 2025 (late) — A Federal Circuit appeal was docketed as No. 25-2121, which per the case metadata corresponds to the appeal of the IPR2024-00280 Final Written Decision on the '011 patent. Related Federal Circuit appeals in the same dispute exist (e.g., Nos. 25-2099, 25-2100, 25-2101, with Aerin Medical Inc. appearing as appellant in at least one per the Justia party index).
• Status: On appeal (active). The appeal's caption, filing date, and the identity of the appellant (Neurent as petitioner, or Foundry as patent owner depending on the FWD's outcome) were not directly confirmed in the available sources and should be verified against the Federal Circuit docket (PACER/CM/ECF) and the PTAB FWD (Paper 41).
• The district court litigation (23-756, consolidated with 24-1070) has no final judgment — no settlement or dismissal has been reported. It is in a resumed-but-stayed scheduling posture pending the IPR appeals.

---

Bottom Line

• Litigation: Aerin/Foundry v. Neurent (D. Del. 23-756-JLH, filed 2023-07-11) — eight-patent infringement suit over the NEUROMARK® rhinitis device; Neurent's partial motion to dismiss was denied (2024-06-05); the case was stayed in its entirety on 2024-08-08 pending IPRs; Aerin disclaimed two patents (2024-10-24); Neurent's separate suit (24-1070) was consolidated in (2025-03-18). No trial or judgment yet.
• IPR on the '011 patent: IPR2024-00280, instituted 2024-07-23, Final Written Decision issued 2025-07-21, now on appeal as Fed. Cir. No. 25-2121 (the FWD's merits — validity or invalidity of the challenged claims — could not be confirmed from sources retrieved).
• Unknowns to verify: the FWD's holdings; the appellant in 25-2121; the Federal Circuit briefing schedule; and the pending rulings on Aerin's motion to dismiss Neurent's amended counterclaims (D.I. 89) and Aerin's motion to dismiss in the consolidated 24-1070 action.

Clarification of the "case" before answering

No. 25-2121 (Fed. Cir.) is not itself a patent infringement case. It is the appeal of the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00280, Neurent Medical Inc. & Neurent Medical Ltd. v. The Foundry, LLC (U.S. Patent No. 10,894,011, the "'011 patent"). The FWD issued July 21, 2025, and Patent Owner The Foundry, LLC filed its Notice of Appeal on September 15, 2025 (PTAB Paper 42), which is the filing that produced the Fed. Cir. appeal docketed as No. 25-2121.

The underlying patent infringement case in which the term "plaintiff(s)" properly applies is:

Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC v. Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., No. 1:23-cv-00756-JLH (D. Del.), filed July 11, 2023 (consolidated with No. 24-1070-JLH), in which Aerin and The Foundry assert the '011 patent (among eight patents) against Neurent. The action is stayed pending the IPR final written decisions.

Plaintiffs = Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC, both represented in the district court action and in the IPRs by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (Finnegan's own case page confirms it represents both plaintiffs/patent owners in the D. Del. case and the IPRs).

Counsel of record for the plaintiffs

Finnegan team (lead / trial counsel; PHV in D. Del.)

Delaware local counsel (D. Del. requirement, LR 83.5)

Additional counsel who appeared for the patent owner in IPR2024-00280 (relevant to the appeal)

In-house counsel

None identified from the public sources retrieved. If Aerin or The Foundry has in-house IP counsel, that information was not in the docket excerpts or firm pages reviewed.

Important caveats

• Fed. Cir. docket not directly verified. I could not access PACER/CM-ECF for No. 25-2121 to pull the actual entry-of-appearance list. The appellant is The Foundry, LLC (it filed the PTAB Notice of Appeal); Neurent Medical Inc./Ltd. are appellees. The Finnegan/Greenberg Traurig team above is the best-supported inference for who is handling the appeal, but the Fed. Cir. notice-of-appearance docket entries should be checked to confirm who is "counsel of record" on appeal.
• No district-court "plaintiff" side involvement in the IPR appeal beyond The Foundry. Aerin Medical Inc. is a co-plaintiff in the D. Del. case but is not a party to IPR2024-00280 (The Foundry owns the '011 patent); the IPR/appeal caption is only Neurent v. The Foundry. If the user intended counsel for the appellant (The Foundry) on appeal, the same Finnegan/GT team applies, subject to the docket-check caveat.
• If filings on the Fed. Cir. docket are sealed or appearances are pending, that would not be visible from the sources I retrieved; the public record currently shows the PTAB-side appearances listed above.

Key sources: Finnegan matter page (Aerin Medical Inc. et al. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al., 1:23-cv-00756, D. Del.; IPRs 2024-00275/76/77/78/79/80/82, 00669); D. Del. dockets 1:23-cv-00756 and 1:24-cv-01070 (Justia/CourtListener/PACER excerpts, e.g., D.I. 10, D.I. 11, D.I. 94, D.I. 108-119); PTAB IPR2024-00280 docket (FWD Paper 41, July 21, 2025; Patent Owner's Notice of Appeal, Paper 42, Sept. 15, 2025; PO Request for Oral Argument, March 11, 2025); PTAB counsel tables (GreyB/IPVerse and USPTO PTACTS petition filings).

I've located the underlying infringement case (D. Del. 1:23-cv-00756). The docket shows Neurent moved to admit pro hac vice counsel (Lantier, Cavanaugh, Cohen, Stern) on Aug. 22, 2023. Let me pin down their firms, the Delaware local counsel, and any in-house attorneys.

The picture is forming: WilmerHale leads for Neurent, with Delaware local counsel likely from Morris Nichols (Jack Blumenfeld and Brian Egan appear on the docket). Let me verify the full counsel list via CourtListener's parties page and Morris Nichols' site.

Counsel of Record for Defendants Neurent Medical Inc. & Neurent Medical Ltd. — underlying infringement action Aerin Medical Inc. et al. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00756 (D. Del.)

Important scope note. The appeal docket No. 25-2121 is the Federal Circuit appeal of the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00280 (Neurent v. The Foundry, '011 patent). There, Neurent was the petitioner, and The Foundry is the likely appellant — so Neurent will be the appellee on appeal. The "defendant(s) in this patent infringement case" are Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd. in the underlying D. Del. case, and the confirmed counsel of record there are set out below. I could not access PACER for either the D. Del. or Federal Circuit dockets; the confirmed entries come from the public Justia/CourtListener docket copy for 1:23-cv-00756 and PTAB filings. Both Neurent entities appear jointly represented by one team; there is no indication of separate counsel per entity.

Lead / pro hac vice counsel — Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (Washington, DC)

David L. Cavanaugh — lead counsel (partner, WilmerHale, Washington, DC; 2100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW)

• Confirmed as Neurent's lead: admitted pro hac vice in the D. Del. case via D.I. 11 (motion filed Aug. 22, 2023, granted Aug. 23, 2023), and he led and argued the consolidated IPR hearings for Neurent (IPR2024-00277/-278/-282 oral hearing transcript, Apr. 23, 2025). A veteran patent litigator with a long track record in Hatch-Waxman and Section 337/ITC and district-court patent cases; he is the named lead petitioner counsel on every Neurent IPR against Aerin/Foundry per PTAB dockets (ipverse.greyb.com).

Gregory H. Lantier — pro hac vice / partner (WilmerHale, Washington, DC)

• Listed in D.I. 11 for the D. Del. case. Per his PTAB pro hac vice declaration (Ex. 1081, IPR2024-00277), he is a WilmerHale partner with 20+ years of IP litigation and has appeared pro hac vice in high-profile IPRs including PNC Bank v. USAA (IPR2022-00075/-00076), Intel v. VLSI (IPR2021-01192), and Medtronic Vascular v. TMT Systems (IPR2021-01532).

Alexis R. Cohen — pro hac vice (WilmerHale, Washington, DC)

• Listed in D.I. 11; appeared at the April 2025 PTAB oral argument for Neurent and is on the IPR service list (docketalarm.com hearing transcript). Patent-litigation associate/partner concentrating in IP litigation; also active in the Neurent-vs.-Aerin cross-IPRs.

Joshua L. Stern — pro hac vice (WilmerHale, Washington, DC)

• Listed in D.I. 11; admitted pro hac vice before the PTAB in the Neurent IPRs (e.g., IPR2024-00275, -00278 orders) and appeared at the consolidated hearing. IP litigation attorney; per his PTAB declaration (Ex. 1082, IPR2024-00276), he focuses on patent litigation.

Alexander Nemtzow — of counsel / associate (WilmerHale, Washington, DC) — district-court appearance not independently confirmed

• Appears on Neurent's IPR counsel/service list and at the PTAB hearing, but he was not among the four attorneys in the initial D. Del. PHV motion (D.I. 11). He may have been added to the district case later; I could not verify that from public sources.

Brian Lambson — of counsel / associate (WilmerHale) — district-court appearance not independently confirmed

• On the IPR service list for Neurent (Petitioner counsel email list, IPR2024-00278 notice of deposition); no confirmation of a D. Del. appearance.

Delaware local counsel — Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Wilmington, DE)

Jack B. Blumenfeld — local counsel (partner, Morris Nichols, Wilmington; 1201 N. Market St.)

• Confirmed: filed the first defense-side stipulation extending Neurent's answer deadline (D.I. 8, Aug. 1, 2023). Longtime Delaware patent-litigation local counsel for many out-of-state defendants; one of the most frequent filers in D. Del. patent cases.

Brian P. Egan — local counsel (partner, Morris Nichols, Wilmington)

• Confirmed: he is the ECF filing attorney on Neurent's PHV motion (D.I. 11, filed Aug. 22, 2023, docket text "(Egan, Brian)"). He also represents Neurent as plaintiff-side Delaware counsel in the related Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01070 (D. Del.) (Justia docket). Patent-litigation partner with an active D. Del. IP docket.

In-house counsel

• None identified. No Neurent in-house attorney appears as counsel of record in the public docket entries reviewed. Note: a "Stephen Horan, company representative from Neurent" appeared at the April 2025 PTAB hearing (hearing transcript), but he was introduced as a company representative, not as counsel, and I found no evidence he is a lawyer of record.

Procedural/case-management details worth flagging

• The case was initially assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams (docket entry July 19, 2023); Finnegan's case listing and later filings show the matter before Judge Hall (case no. now bearing "-JLH," e.g., D.I. 94), indicating a reassignment. Magistrate Judge Fallon handled the protective-order/prosecution-bar dispute (D.I. 66, May 8, 2024), per JD Supra/Lexology coverage.
• The case was stayed pending the IPRs (docket entry July 19, 2024: "Order Staying Case"), consistent with the parallel IPR campaign.
• On the Federal Circuit appeal (25-2121), counsel of record has not been verified from primary sources; given the IPR record, the appellee-side team would be expected to be the same WilmerHale group (Cavanaugh, Lantier, Cohen, Stern, Nemtzow), with Morris Nichols as Delaware counsel if retained for the appeal — but that is inference, not confirmation. If the appeal was brought by The Foundry as patent owner, the Finnegan/Greensberg Traurig teams representing Aerin/Foundry before the PTAB (J. Michael Jakes, Kathleen Daley, Sonja Sahlsten, Christopher Howes at Finnegan; Ben Gilford, Heath Briggs, Trenton Ward at Greenberg Traurig) would be the appellant-side counsel.

Sourcing caveats

• Confirmed counsel names rest on: D. Del. docket D.I. 8 and D.I. 11 (via Justia docket copy for 1:23-cv-00756, retrieved Aug. 23, 2023); PTAB pro hac vice declarations (Lantier, Stern) and the April 23, 2025 consolidated oral-hearing transcript (DocketAlarm); PTAB counsel service lists (IPR2024-00278 deposition notice); and ipverse.greyb.com PTAB case pages.
• I could not access PACER, so the current D. Del. or Federal Circuit dockets were not reviewed; additional counsel (e.g., later-added WilmerHale associates or Morris Nichols attorneys, or any separate appellate counsel) may have appeared since the entries I verified. No filings appear sealed, but I cannot rule out later non-public appearances.