Untitled case

Case Overview: Appeal No. 25-2114 (Fed. Cir.) — IPR2024-00669, Neurent Medical Inc. v. The Foundry, LLC (U.S. Patent No. 11,679,077)

Parties and roles. This is the Federal Circuit appeal of the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00669. The patent owner/appellant is The Foundry, LLC, a California LLC headquartered in Menlo Park — a medical-device incubator founded by Mark Deem and Hanson Gifford (both named inventors on the '077 patent) that develops devices and treatments for chronic rhinitis. The petitioner/appellee is Neurent Medical Inc. (a Delaware subsidiary based in Braintree, MA) and its Irish parent Neurent Medical Ltd. (Galway), which develops the Neuromark® System, a radiofrequency (RF) neuromodulation platform for treating chronic rhinitis. The '077 patent is exclusively licensed to Aerin Medical Inc. (Mountain View, CA), a commercial-stage company that markets the FDA-cleared VivAer® and RhinAer® RF styluses for nasal airway obstruction and chronic rhinitis; Aerin and Foundry are co-plaintiffs in the underlying infringement suit. Neither side is an NPE — both are operating medical-device companies litigating in the same commercial space.

Accused product and asserted patent. The accused product in the parallel infringement suit is Neurent's Neuromark System (handpiece plus generator), which delivers RF energy to nasal tissue, including the posterior nasal nerve and inferior turbinate, to treat rhinitis. The patent at issue is U.S. Patent No. 11,679,077, "Systems and Methods for Delivery of a Therapeutic Agent" (issued June 19, 2023; application 17/151,938). Technically, the patent spans two related bodies of disclosure: (1) methods and apparatus for delivering therapeutic agents — including botulinum-toxin light-chain fragments — into target cells via membrane permeabilization for treating conditions such as rhinitis, and (2) (the claims actually challenged in the IPR) an RF treatment apparatus with an elongate body, a multi-electrode end effector (at least 4–8 electrodes) configured to deliver bipolar RF energy to submucosal tissue of the inferior turbinate, and a console that controls energy output based on temperature-sensor feedback. The IPR petition's Grounds 1–4 argued the patent lost its claimed 2005/2006 priority because of alleged new matter added during prosecution (making references like Saadat and Deem prior art), while Grounds 5–6 argued obviousness over Makower (US 2005/0240147), Fang (nasal RF treatment), and Edwards/Stern references combined for treating rhinitis.

Procedural posture and significance. The IPR (IPR2024-00669, filed April 3, 2024, before APJs Sheridan Snedden, Susan Mitchell, and Timothy Majors) was instituted July 23, 2024, and on July 21, 2025 (Paper 43) the Board issued a Final Written Decision holding all challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) and dismissing Foundry's motion to exclude evidence. Foundry's appeal is docketed as No. 25-2114 in the Federal Circuit; the precise caption and party alignment of the appeal itself were not independently verified in the available dockets, but the case metadata identifies Foundry as the expected appellant, and the Federal Circuit has exclusive appellate jurisdiction over IPR final written decisions under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c) and 319. The appeal sits atop a broader war: Aerin and Foundry sued Neurent in D. Del. (C.A. No. 1:23-cv-00756-JLH, Judge Jennifer L. Hall), asserting eight Foundry/Aerin patents; Neurent counter-sued (and separately filed No. 24-1070-JLH), and the district case has been stayed since August 8, 2024 pending the IPR sweep. Neurent filed a parallel series of IPRs (IPR2024-00275 through -00282), and in July 2025 the Board knocked out claims across multiple nasal-airway patents (see Law360: "PTAB Knocks Out Claims In 3 Nasal Airway Patents"), with Aerin's own appeals docketed as Fed. Cir. Nos. 25-2099, 25-2100, and 25-2101. The case is notable for three reasons: it is a classic challenger-side IPR portfolio sweep used to hollow out a competitor's asserted patents while the district court case is stayed; it turns on a significant priority-date/new-matter question (whether a 2021 continuation can reach back to 2005–2006 disclosures); and it pits two commercial competitors in the emerging RF nasal neuromodulation market for chronic rhinitis — a space where Aerin's RhinAer and Neurent's Neuromark are direct rivals. Unverified details: the Federal Circuit docket entries for 25-2114 (briefing status, panel assignment, oral argument) were not accessible in this search and should be confirmed on PACER before citing them.

Key Legal Developments & Outcome — Aerin/Foundry v. Neurent ('077 Patent Dispute)

Important framing note. The docket you've provided (Fed. Cir. No. 25-2114) is not an appeal from a district-court judgment in an infringement suit. It is an appeal of the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00669, which invalidated all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,679,077 (the "'077 patent"). The underlying infringement litigation is Aerin Medical Inc. et al. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al., C.A. No. 1:23-cv-00756-JLH (D. Del.), which was stayed in its entirety in August 2024 pending the IPRs and has produced no claim construction, trial, or verdict. Below is the full chronology, covering the district court case, the IPR, and the present appeal.

---

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings (D. Del.)

• 2023-07-11 — Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC filed the Delaware action (C.A. No. 23-756-JLH, Judge Jennifer L. Hall) against Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd. (Joint Status Report, D.I. 108 context; Finnegan matter page).
• Amended Complaint (D.I. 17) — Aerin/Foundry asserted infringement of eight patents: 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). The '077 patent is owned by The Foundry, LLC; Aerin is its exclusive licensee in the nasal-cavity treatment field (per Foundry's IPR mandatory notices).
• 2024-07-08 — Neurent filed Amended Counterclaims (D.I. 81) asserting that Aerin infringes U.S. Patent No. 11,998,262 ('262), plus tortious interference and unfair competition claims.
• 2024 (mid-year) — Aerin/Foundry moved to dismiss the counterclaims (D.I. 89); the motion was still pending as of the March 2025 status report.

2. Parallel PTAB IPR Proceedings (the decisive front)

• 2024-01-18 — Neurent filed the first wave of IPR petitions against the asserted Aerin/Foundry patents, including IPR2024-00281 directed to the '077 patent. That petition was terminated on 2024-04-24 (without institution; petitioner sought a fee refund), and Neurent re-challenged the '077 patent in a new petition.
• 2024-04-03 — Neurent filed IPR2024-00669 against the '077 patent (claims 1–8 and 11), on grounds asserting (inter alia) Saadat and Deem as anticipatory references (based on an alleged loss of priority), and obviousness over Makower (US 2005/0240147) + Fang + Edwards ('535) ± Stern ('720). Patent Owner's Preliminary Response argued the '077 patent is entitled to a July 21, 2006 priority date (via incorporation by reference of the '771 provisional in the '090 application), that Saadat/Deem therefore were not prior art, and that § 325(d) should bar institution.
• 2024-07-23 — PTAB instituted IPR2024-00669 (Institution Decision). In the same window (July 2024), the Board instituted IPRs on essentially all of the other asserted Aerin/Foundry patents (per the parties' stipulation and status report referencing D.I. 93).
• 2025-04-29 — PTAB oral argument held for IPR2024-00669 together with related IPRs 2024-00279 ('675) and 2024-00280 ('011).
• ~2025-07-21 — PTAB issued the Final Written Decision (Paper 43) in IPR2024-00669: all challenged claims (1–8 and 11) of the '077 patent determined unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), and Foundry's motion to exclude was dismissed (DocketAlarm docket entry for Paper 43; IPverse lists the termination date as 2025-07-21 and status "Final Written Decision – Appealed"). Note: I could not pull the FWD text itself to verify the exact issue date and reasoning; the 2025-07-21 date is inferred from the PTAB termination date.

3. District Court Developments During the IPRs

• 2024-08-08 — The Delaware court entered the parties' stipulation staying the action in its entirety (D.I. 93) — including the Aerin/Foundry infringement claims and Neurent's counterclaims — until the PTAB issued Final Written Decisions in the IPRs.
• 2024-09-24 — Neurent filed a separate infringement action, 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.
• 2024-10-24 — Aerin statutorily disclaimed all asserted claims of the '597 and '194 patents, removing those two patents from the case.
• 2025-03-18 — The court entered a Stipulation and Order to Consolidate (D.I. 106) the 24-1070 action with 23-756, plus an Order Regarding Interim Scheduling for the Neurent patents-in-suit (D.I. 107). The stay was expressly maintained as to the Aerin/Foundry patent claims, and the parties' stipulated schedule was keyed to the IPR outcomes.

4. Claim Construction, Discovery, Trial — None Occurred

• Claim construction (Markman): No Markman hearing or ruling has occurred. The case was stayed in August 2024 — roughly four months after the operative pleadings — before claim-construction proceedings matured. I found no verified claim-construction order for the '077 patent in the district court.
• Discovery: No substantive merits discovery milestones are documented; the stay (D.I. 93) suspended merits discovery on the Aerin/Foundry patents. The only notable "discovery-adjacent" events are the counterclaim filings and the pending motion to dismiss (D.I. 89).
• Trial / verdict / post-trial motions: None. No jury trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee motion exists in the record I could verify.

5. Present Posture & Appeal (Fed. Cir. No. 25-2114)

• The IPR FWD invalidating the '077 patent's challenged claims was appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit as Case No. 25-2114 (filed in FY2025, i.e., on or before 2025-09-30). Per the case metadata, the appellant is expected to be The Foundry, LLC. I could not verify the exact notice-of-appeal date, the briefing schedule, or whether Neurent filed any cross-appeal; the appeal is pending as of the 2026-08-29 data date.
• Sister IPR appeals: IPverse's tracking indicates the FWD in IPR2024-00280 ('011 patent) is also "Appealed," while IPR2024-00279 ('675 patent) shows a non-appealed FWD — meaning the Federal Circuit may be handling a cluster of related appeals from this same dispute.
• District court: The 23-756 action (as consolidated with 24-1070) remains stayed as to the Aerin/Foundry patent claims. If the PTAB's invalidation of the '077 patent stands on appeal, Aerin/Foundry's infringement claims based on the '077 patent will be dead (mooted/estoppel-bound); conversely, reversal would revive the stay-lifted infringement case, which would then proceed toward claim construction and merits discovery.

Outcome Summary

• For the '077 patent: All challenged claims (1–8, 11) were invalidated by the PTAB in IPR2024-00669 (~2025-07-21); that decision is on appeal at the Federal Circuit (No. 25-2114), which is the case you asked about.
• For the infringement litigation: There has been no merits disposition — no summary judgment, no trial, no verdict, no settlement. The case is stayed pending the IPR/appeal track. The operative "outcome" to date is the PTAB invalidation and the ensuing appeal.

---

Source & Confidence Notes

• D. Del. docket facts (filing date, D.I. 17, 81, 89, 93, 106, 107; disclaimer; consolidation; stay) are from the parties' Joint Status Report filed in C.A. No. 23-756 (JLH) (document reproduced on the USPTO PTACTS site) and Finnegan's matter page for Aerin Medical Inc. et al. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al. — high confidence.
• IPR2024-00669 details (filing 2024-04-03, institution 2024-07-23, termination 2025-07-21, status "Appealed," Paper 43 FWD "all challenged claims unpatentable") are from IPverse/GreyB PTAB tracker and DocketAlarm — good confidence on dates; the FWD's precise reasoning was not retrieved.
• The challenged-claims scope (1–8, 11) and grounds come from the Bikson expert declaration and Foundry's Preliminary Response (PTACTS) — high confidence.
• Not verified: the exact FWD issue date, the Federal Circuit notice-of-appeal date and briefing status, the identity of counsel on appeal, and whether any Markman or discovery activity occurred in the district court before the stay (none is indicated in the sources reviewed).

Important framing note

The case in the metadata — Federal Circuit appeal No. 25-2114, an appeal of the IPR2024-00669 Final Written Decision invalidating U.S. Patent No. 11,679,077 ('077) — is not itself a patent infringement case. It is an administrative appeal of a PTAB inter partes review. There are no "plaintiffs" on the Federal Circuit docket in the traditional sense; the parties are an appellant (expected: The Foundry, LLC, the patent owner that lost the IPR) and an appellee (expected: Neurent Medical Inc./Ltd., the IPR petitioner, with the USPTO Director often joining).

The patent infringement case that generated this dispute is Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC v. Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., No. 1:23-cv-00756 (D. Del.), in which the '077 patent is among the asserted patents. Below is counsel of record for the plaintiffs there, plus the closely related IPR/appeal teams.

---

Plaintiffs' counsel of record — Aerin Medical Inc. & The Foundry, LLC (D. Del. 1:23-cv-00756)

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (lead patent litigation counsel)

McCarter & English, LLP (Delaware local counsel)

Source: Justia docket for 1:23-cv-00756 (PHV motions for Jakes, Daley, Sahlsten granted 8/4/2023; PHV for Neurent's WilmerHale team granted 8/23/2023); CourtListener parties page; plaintiffs' PTAB filing dated 8/5/2024 with signature block listing Finnegan attorneys as "Of Counsel" and McCarter & English's Silver/Joyce as attorneys for plaintiffs; Finnegan matter page and Kathleen Galleher bio.

---

The Foundry's IPR counsel (IPR2024-00669) — the team most likely on appeal 25-2114

Per the Patent Owner's Power of Attorney and mandatory notices in the IPR series (IPR2024-00281/00669 papers), The Foundry, LLC's designated PTAB counsel was:

• Lead counsel: Kathleen A. Daley (Finnegan, Washington, DC; Reg. No. 36,116)
• Back-up counsel: Sonja W. Sahlsten; Christopher C. Howes; Anthony J. Berlenbach (all Finnegan, Washington, DC); Jason Stach (Finnegan, Atlanta, GA)

Petitioner Neurent was represented by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (David Cavanaugh, Gregory Lantier, Alexis Cohen, Joshua Stern, Alexander Nemtzow, Gilbert Smolenski).

Source: Patent Owner's Power of Attorney and Mandatory Notices filed 2/8/2024 in IPR2024-00669/00281 (PTACTS).

---

Federal Circuit appeal 25-2114 — status of counsel verification

I was unable to verify the actual counsel-of-record entries on the Federal Circuit docket for 25-2114 through my searches — no PACER/CM/ECF docket sheet, notice of appearance, or briefing entries for that appeal surfaced. Based on continuity, the appellate team for appellant The Foundry, LLC is expected to be the same Finnegan group (Daley, Sahlsten, Howes, Jakes, et al.), but I cannot confirm that from a sourced docket, and I have not verified the exact caption or the appellee/party configuration (e.g., whether the USPTO Director is a named appellee). If filings are available only under seal or appearances haven't yet been entered, that would only be confirmable via PACER for the Federal Circuit (case 25-2114) or the appellate docket feed.

---

Bottom line

• In the underlying infringement case (D. Del. 1:23-cv-00756), plaintiffs Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC are represented by Finnegan (Jakes, Daley, Sahlsten, Howes — Washington, DC) with McCarter & English local counsel (Silver, Joyce — Wilmington, DE).
• The '077 patent owner in the IPR (The Foundry) was led by Kathleen A. Daley of Finnegan.
• For Federal Circuit appeal 25-2114 itself, the counsel of record could not be independently verified from a docket source in this session — treat the Finnegan team as the expected but unconfirmed appellate counsel.

Important framing note on the procedural posture

Before listing attorneys, I need to flag a definitional issue: this is not a district-court patent infringement case. Federal Circuit No. 25-2114 is an appeal of the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00669 (Paper 43), which invalidated all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,679,077. The parties there are:

• Appellant / Patent Owner: The Foundry, LLC
• Appellee / IPR Petitioner: Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd.

The only true patent infringement case in this dispute is the parallel Delaware action, Aerin Medical Inc. et al. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00756 (D. Del.), where the defendants are Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd. (plaintiffs: Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC). I've therefore treated Neurent as the "defendant" party whose counsel you're asking about. The same WilmerHale team represents Neurent in both the IPR and the Delaware case, so it is the team almost certainly appearing as appellee counsel in 25-2114.

Counsel of record for the defendant/appellee (Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd.)

Lead / pro hac vice counsel — Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP

Source: D. Del. docket, D.I. 11 (Motion for Pro Hac Vice Appearance of Gregory H. Lantier, David L. Cavanaugh, Alexis R. Cohen and Joshua L. Stern, filed by Neurent) and D.I. 12 (SO ORDERED by Judge Gregory B. Williams, 8/23/2023) — via Justia dockets.

Delaware local counsel

Source: Justia docket for 1:23-cv-00756 (D.I. 8, D.I. 11, D.I. 12).

Additional Delaware counsel flagged by CourtListener (role not fully verified)

What I could and could not verify

• Verified: Party identities in IPR2024-00669 (Neurent = petitioner; Foundry = patent owner) and the D. Del. infringement docket (Neurent entities = defendants); WilmerHale team + Morris Nichols local counsel in the Delaware case; Finnegan (J. Michael Jakes, Kathleen A. Daley, Sonja W. Sahlsten) representing the plaintiffs/patent owners.
• Not directly verified: The Federal Circuit's own appearance docket for 25-2114 (I could not pull PACER/CMECF or the CAFC docket text in this search — search results for the Federal Circuit case returned nothing). No filing in 25-2114 naming appellee counsel was located. The WilmerHale team is a strong inference from the IPR and D. Del. records, but I cannot confirm with a specific 25-2114 docket entry whether there have been any counsel changes or additions on appeal (e.g., a dedicated appellate specialist added for the Federal Circuit briefing).
• No in-house counsel for Neurent appeared in any of the records I located.
• If filings are sealed: nothing in the located records indicates sealed counsel designations; the PTAB and D. Del. counsel entries are public. However, the Federal Circuit briefs (opening brief from Foundry, response brief from Neurent) may not yet be publicly indexed in the sources I could reach.

Bottom line: The defendant/appellee's counsel of record is led by David L. Cavanaugh and Gregory H. Lantier of WilmerHale (Washington, DC), with Jack B. Blumenfeld and Brian P. Egan of Morris Nichols (Wilmington, DE) as Delaware local counsel, and Daniel M. Silver / Alexandra M. Joyce (McCarter & English) possibly appearing as additional/substitute Delaware counsel — though that last item, and the exact Federal Circuit appearance list in 25-2114, should be confirmed against the CAFC docket before relying on it.