Untitled case

This case, 1:25-cv-00667, is a patent infringement litigation filed by Inspire Medical Systems, Inc. ("Inspire") against Nyxoah SA and its wholly-owned subsidiary Nyxoah, Inc. (collectively "Nyxoah") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. Inspire, a medical device company based in Minneapolis, Minnesota, specializes in minimally invasive solutions for treating Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) using electrical stimulation of upper airway nerves. Nyxoah is also a medical device company, and the defendants are accused of infringing Inspire's patents with their "Genio" product, an implanted hypoglossal nerve stimulator for treating apnea, which Nyxoah intends to commercialize in the United States upon FDA approval. The lawsuit was filed on May 30, 2025.

The litigation asserts infringement of U.S. Patent No. 11,806,526, along with U.S. Patent Nos. 10,898,709 and 11,850,424. U.S. Patent No. 11,806,526 generally describes a device designed for treating sleep-disordered breathing by including a stimulation element configured to stimulate an airway-patency-related nerve. This technical focus underscores the direct competition between Inspire and Nyxoah in the medical device market for sleep apnea treatments. The case is being presided over by Judge Richard G. Andrews in the District of Delaware, a venue consistently ranked among the top courts for patent filings due to its specialized expertise in intellectual property law and experienced judiciary. Although Inspire is headquartered in Minnesota, it is incorporated in Delaware, which often influences the choice of venue for patent disputes.

This case is notable as a direct competitor dispute between two operating companies in the highly specialized and growing market for implantable medical devices treating obstructive sleep apnea. The competitive nature of the suit is further highlighted by Nyxoah's filing of an Inter Partes Review (IPR2026-00090) against Inspire Medical Systems, Inc. on December 17, 2025, challenging the validity of at least one of the asserted patents at the USPTO in parallel to the district court proceedings. The district court case has experienced a stay of deadlines and subsequent disagreements between the parties regarding a revised scheduling order, indicating ongoing procedural complexities, potentially influenced by the parallel IPR challenge and a granted motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel.

Here's a summary of the key legal developments and outcome for the patent infringement litigation involving U.S. Patent 11806526, case number 1:25-cv-00667, in the Delaware District Court.

Legal Developments:

• 2025-05-30: Filing of Complaint
  Inspire Medical Systems, Inc. ("Inspire") filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Nyxoah, Inc. and Nyxoah SA (collectively, "Nyxoah") in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware. The complaint alleged infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 10,898,709, 11,806,526, and 11,850,424.

• 2025-08-25 (approx.): Filing of Answer and Counterclaims
  By September 16, 2025, Nyxoah filed an answer and counterclaims, alleging that Inspire's Inspire IV and Inspire V devices infringe on three of Nyxoah's patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 8,700,183, 9,415,215, and 9,415,216. Nyxoah admits to responding to the complaint by August 25, 2025.

• 2025-11-18: Motion to Disqualify Counsel Granted
  Defendants' motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel, Latham & Watkins LLP, was granted by Judge Eleanor G. Tennyson. The disqualification was based on Latham's prior representation of underwriters for Nyxoah's IPO, during which Latham had access to Nyxoah's confidential information relevant to its Genio product and intellectual property. Objections to this order were due by December 3, 2025.

• 2025-11-21 to 2026-01-20: Stay of Deadlines
  All deadlines in the case were stayed from November 21, 2025, through January 20, 2026, at Inspire's request. Inspire later suggested extending the stay further, for 21 days after the court's ruling on Inspire's objections to the disqualification order. As of March 2, 2026, the case had been stayed for three months.

• 2025-12-17: Filing of Parallel PTAB IPR Petitions
  Nyxoah, Inc. et al. filed two Inter Partes Review (IPR) petitions against Inspire Medical Systems, Inc.:

  • IPR2026-00090: Challenging U.S. Patent No. 10,898,709.
  • IPR2026-00091: Challenging U.S. Patent No. 11,806,526 (the patent at issue in this case).

• 2025-11 (approx.): Discovery Milestones
  Inspire Medical Systems, Inc. filed its ESI Disclosures, and Defendants Nyxoah, Inc. and Nyxoah SA also filed their Disclosures of Electronically Stored Information. Nyxoah further filed Responses and Objections to Inspire's First Set of Interrogatories and First Set of Requests for Production.

• 2026-03-02: Discussion of Schedule Adjustment and Potential Stay
  The parties communicated with the court regarding a revised scheduling order following the lifting of the stay. Nyxoah also indicated its intention to file a motion to stay the district court case pending the resolution of its IPRs concerning the patents-in-suit.

• 2026-04-13: PTAB Director Discretionary Denials
  For both IPR2026-00090 (U.S. Patent No. 10,898,709) and IPR2026-00091 (U.S. Patent No. 11,806,526), the PTAB issued a "Director Discretionary Decision: Deny" on April 13, 2026. This resulted in the termination of both IPR proceedings on the same date, meaning institution of review was denied. These denials align with policies emphasizing AIA reviews as alternatives, not expansions, of district court litigation.

• 2026-05-14: Case Consolidation
  Case No. 1:25-cv-00667 was consolidated with a related case, 1:25-cv-01147 (where Nyxoah is the plaintiff), with 1:25-cv-00667 designated as the lead case. The order was signed by Judge John Campbell Barker.

• 2026-10-29: Upcoming Claim Construction Hearing
  A Claim Construction (Markman) Hearing is scheduled for October 29, 2026.

Outcome/Present Posture:

The case is currently ongoing in the Delaware District Court. Key upcoming events include a Claim Construction Hearing on October 29, 2026. A Case Management Conference is set for December 3, 2027, followed by a Final Pretrial Conference on the same date, and a Jury Trial scheduled for December 13, 2027. The parallel IPR proceedings challenging U.S. Patent 11806526 (IPR2026-00091) and U.S. Patent 10,898,709 (IPR2026-00090) were terminated due to Director Discretionary Denials of institution on April 13, 2026. This means the district court litigation will proceed without the benefit of PTAB review on those specific challenges, and any motion to stay based on these IPRs would likely be denied.

Plaintiff Inspire Medical Systems Inc. in case 1:25-cv-00667 in the Delaware District Court is represented by both local counsel and attorneys admitted pro hac vice.

Initially, the complaint, filed on May 30, 2025, listed the following attorneys for Inspire Medical Systems Inc.:

• Rodger D. Smith II (Attorney) – Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE.
• Anthony D. Raucci (Attorney) – Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE.
• Michael A. Morin (Of Counsel) – Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC.
• Rachel L. Weiner Cohen (Of Counsel) – Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC.
• Rachel R. Blitzer (Of Counsel) – Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY.

A significant development occurred on November 18, 2025, when "Defendants' motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel" was granted by Judge Eleanor G. Tennyson. Subsequently, Inspire Medical Systems Inc. filed objections to this disqualification order. Despite this, Rodger D. Smith II and Anthony D. Raucci of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP continued to file documents on behalf of the plaintiff, including a joint stipulation regarding a stay extension on January 16, 2026, and a letter to Judge Andrews concerning a revised scheduling order on March 2, 2026. This indicates that the disqualification either did not apply to Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, or their representation continued pending resolution of the objection.

Based on the available docket information, the following attorneys are identified as counsel for the plaintiff, Inspire Medical Systems Inc., with the understanding that the status of the disqualification of Latham & Watkins LLP counsel is still under objection:

Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Local Counsel)

• Rodger D. Smith II
  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff (Local Counsel).
  • Firm & Office: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP is a prominent Delaware firm with a strong reputation for intellectual property litigation, frequently serving as local counsel in complex patent cases. Rodger D. Smith II is listed as a key contact for the firm's Intellectual Property practice.
• Anthony D. Raucci
  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff (Local Counsel).
  • Firm & Office: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience: Anthony D. Raucci is also part of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP's intellectual property team, which is known for its involvement in high-stakes IP disputes in Delaware courts.

Latham & Watkins LLP (Of Counsel / Pro Hac Vice - Subject to Disqualification Objection)

• Michael A. Morin
  • Role: Of Counsel (Pro Hac Vice).
  • Firm & Office: Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC.
  • Experience: Michael A. Morin was granted pro hac vice admission in this case. Latham & Watkins is a large international law firm with a significant intellectual property litigation practice.
• Rachel L. Weiner Cohen
  • Role: Of Counsel (Pro Hac Vice).
  • Firm & Office: Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC.
  • Experience: Rachel L. Weiner Cohen was granted pro hac vice admission in this case.
• Rachel R. Blitzer
  • Role: Of Counsel (Pro Hac Vice).
  • Firm & Office: Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY.
  • Experience: Rachel R. Blitzer was granted pro hac vice admission in this case.

Additionally, on November 4, 2025, a motion for pro hac vice appearance was granted for several other attorneys, including some already listed, indicating a broader team from potentially multiple firms:

• Richard A. Lowry (Pro Hac Vice)
• Tiffany Weston (Pro Hac Vice)
• Sarah Propst (Pro Hac Vice)
• Joseph Previti (Pro Hac Vice)

The specific firms and experience for Richard A. Lowry, Tiffany Weston, Sarah Propst, and Joseph Previti are not explicitly detailed in the provided search results beyond their pro hac vice admission. Their representation would also be subject to the outcome of the objection to the disqualification order.
No information was found about Jeffrey M. Hammes, Michael R. Moradzadeh, Sarah C. Holland, or Matthew C. Van Buskirk being counsel of record in this specific case.## Plaintiff's Counsel in Inspire Medical Systems Inc. v. Nyxoah Inc. (1:25-cv-00667)

The plaintiff, Inspire Medical Systems Inc., is represented by a combination of local Delaware counsel and attorneys admitted pro hac vice. It is important to note that a significant development occurred on November 18, 2025, when the "Defendants' motion to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel" was granted by Judge Eleanor G. Tennyson. Inspire Medical Systems Inc. subsequently filed objections to this disqualification order, and the resolution of these objections is pending, impacting the definitive status of some counsel. Despite the disqualification order, attorneys from Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP have continued to file on behalf of the plaintiff, suggesting their continued involvement or that the disqualification did not apply to them.

Here is a breakdown of the counsel of record for Inspire Medical Systems Inc., noting the potential impact of the disqualification order:

Local Counsel

• Rodger D. Smith II

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff (Local Counsel).
  • Firm & Office: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience: Smith is a partner at Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, a firm consistently recognized for its intellectual property litigation practice in Delaware, often serving as local counsel in complex patent infringement cases across various industries, including medical devices. He continues to represent Inspire Medical Systems Inc. in recent filings.

• Anthony D. Raucci

  • Role: Attorney for Plaintiff (Local Counsel).
  • Firm & Office: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience: Raucci is also a member of Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP's intellectual property team, which is noted for its ability to handle intricate IP disputes and provide insights into Delaware court procedures and judicial preferences. He has also continued to appear for the plaintiff.

Pro Hac Vice Counsel (Status Subject to Disqualification Objection)

The initial complaint also listed attorneys from Latham & Watkins LLP as "Of Counsel," and a motion for pro hac vice appearances was granted for several attorneys on November 4, 2025, just before the disqualification order. The ultimate impact of the disqualification order on these attorneys is pending the court's ruling on Inspire's objections.

• Michael A. Morin

  • Role: Of Counsel (Pro Hac Vice).
  • Firm & Office: Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC.
  • Experience: Latham & Watkins LLP is a global law firm with a substantial intellectual property litigation practice. Morin's pro hac vice admission was granted prior to the disqualification order.

• Rachel L. Weiner Cohen

  • Role: Of Counsel (Pro Hac Vice).
  • Firm & Office: Latham & Watkins LLP, Washington, DC.
  • Experience: Cohen's pro hac vice admission was granted prior to the disqualification order.

• Rachel R. Blitzer

  • Role: Of Counsel (Pro Hac Vice).
  • Firm & Office: Latham & Watkins LLP, New York, NY.
  • Experience: Blitzer's pro hac vice admission was granted prior to the disqualification order.

In addition to the aforementioned Latham & Watkins attorneys, the following individuals also had motions for pro hac vice appearance granted on November 4, 2025, although their specific firms and detailed experience were not immediately identified in the search results:

• Richard A. Lowry (Pro Hac Vice)
• Tiffany Weston (Pro Hac Vice)
• Sarah Propst (Pro Hac Vice)
• Joseph Previti (Pro Hac Vice)

The detailed status of these attorneys, particularly those from Latham & Watkins LLP, remains contingent on the District Court's decision regarding Inspire Medical Systems Inc.'s objections to the November 18, 2025, disqualification order.

In the patent infringement case 1:25-cv-00667, representing defendants Nyxoah SA and Nyxoah, Inc., the counsel of record include attorneys from Duane Morris LLP and Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP.

Here's a breakdown of the identified counsel:

Duane Morris LLP

• Jarrad M. Gunther (Attorney for Petitioners)
  • Firm: Duane Morris LLP, Philadelphia, PA
  • Note: Jarrad M. Gunther is listed as an attorney for Petitioners (Nyxoah) in related IPR proceedings challenging the asserted patents. His email is jmgunther@duanemorris.com.
• Monte Terrell Squire (Counsel)
  • Firm: Duane Morris LLP
  • Note: Monte T. Squire is listed as counsel for Nyxoah.
• Diana M. Sangalli (Counsel)
  • Firm: Duane Morris LLP
  • Note: Her email address, dmsangalli@duanmorris.com, appears in a filing related to the IPRs.
• Anthony J. Fitzpatrick (Counsel)
  • Firm: Duane Morris LLP
• L. Norwood Jameson (Counsel)
  • Firm: Duane Morris LLP
• Poornarchita Dwarakanath (Counsel)
  • Firm: Duane Morris LLP

Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP

• Richard L. Horwitz (Of Counsel)
  • Firm: Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP, Wilmington, DE
  • Note: Richard L. Horwitz is an attorney with extensive experience in commercial litigation, focusing primarily on intellectual property, contract, and business tort matters. He is listed as "Of Counsel" at Potter Anderson & Corroon LLP. He has been involved in at least three legal documents in one case according to PlainSite.