Aerin Medical Inc. et al. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al.

Case Overview and Background

Parties and accused product. This is a head-to-head competitor fight in the emerging office-based "interventional rhinology" market for radiofrequency (RF) treatment of nasal conditions. Plaintiffs Aerin Medical Inc. (a Delaware corporation headquartered in Mountain View, CA) and The Foundry, LLC (a Menlo Park, CA medical-device incubator) are both operating/innovation companies — not NPEs. Aerin markets FDA-cleared RF devices including the VivAer® Stylus (nasal airway obstruction) and the RhinAer® Stylus (chronic rhinitis), and is the exclusive licensee of the Foundry patent family (Amended Complaint, D.I. 17, ¶¶ 2–5; IPR expert declaration noting Aerin's exclusive-licensee status for the '077, '011, and '675 patents). Defendants Neurent Medical Ltd. (an Irish company, Galway) and its wholly owned Delaware subsidiary Neurent Medical Inc. (Braintree, MA) are a rival developer and seller of the accused NEUROMARK® System — comprising the Neuromark Device (a single-use nasal applicator) and Neuromark Generator — an RF-energy system for treating rhinitis (D.I. 17, ¶¶ 6–8, 133). Aerin and Foundry sued on July 11, 2023, alleging that Neurent's U.S. launch of NEUROMARK infringes their patent portfolio (D.I. 1; D.I. 17).

Patents and procedural posture. The Amended Complaint (D.I. 17) asserted eight patents — the '597, '194, '318, '271, and '286 patents (nasal-airway RF treatment devices/methods) and the '675, '011, and '077 patents (methods and apparatus for treating nasal tissue, originally conceived for delivering botulinum-toxin light-chain fragments to nasal mucosa via electroporation/sonoporation, later prosecuted to cover RF-energy treatment of nasal tissue). The metadata-designated patent here, U.S. Patent No. 11,679,077 (the "'077 patent," issued June 20, 2023), claims, in substance, an apparatus for treating rhinitis comprising an elongate body sized for nasal insertion, multiple RF electrodes at its distal portion, and an RF generator coupled to supply radiofrequency energy to treat target tissue in the nasal cavity and thereby treat rhinitis — with its specification tracing back to Foundry provisional filings from 2005–2007. The case sits in the District of Delaware (C.A. No. 1:23-cv-00756), initially assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams and reassigned on January 8, 2024 to Judge Jennifer L. Hall (JLH) — Delaware being a preferred patent venue with well-developed local patent rules, and venue being proper in part because both Aerin and Neurent Medical Inc. are Delaware corporations. After Neurent's partial motion to dismiss was denied (D.I. 74) and Neurent answered with counterclaims — asserting its own U.S. Patent No. 11,998,262 against Aerin's RhinAer® plus tortious-interference and unfair-competition claims (D.I. 40; amended at D.I. 81) — the case was stayed in its entirety on August 8, 2024 (D.I. 93) after the PTAB instituted Neurent's eight IPR petitions, including IPR2024-00669 challenging the '077 patent (instituted July 23, 2024). Aerin statutorily disclaimed the asserted '597/'194 claims in October 2024; Neurent's separate Delaware action (1:24-cv-01070-JLH) asserting four of its own patents (the '262, 12,089,889, 12,096,973, and 12,096,974) was consolidated into this case on March 18, 2025 (D.I. 106) with an interim scheduling order (D.I. 107). The PTAB's Final Written Decisions in July 2025 found the challenged claims of multiple Aerin/Foundry patents — including all challenged claims of the '077 patent (IPR2024-00669, FWD July 21, 2025) — unpatentable, and Aerin has appealed those decisions to the Federal Circuit. The district court has since entered a post-IPR schedule setting a Markman hearing for May 28, 2026 and a five-day jury trial for August 23, 2027, with Aerin's pending motions to dismiss Neurent's amended counterclaims and the consolidated Neurent-patent claims still unresolved.

Why the case is notable. The dispute is a textbook example of full-stack "IPR as a litigation off-switch": Neurent petitioned against every asserted Aerin/Foundry patent (IPR2024-00275, -00276, -00277, -00278, -00279, -00280, -00282, and -00669), while Aerin countersued at the PTAB against all four Neurent patents (IPR2025-01124 through -01127) — and the district court stayed the entire case pending the IPRs, leaving the substantive fight largely at the Board and, now, the Federal Circuit. The '077 IPR was also doctrinally interesting: Neurent's challenge turned on written-description support for energy-only RF-treatment claims that were added decades after The Foundry's original neurotoxin-delivery disclosure, a recurring issue for Foundry-style incubator portfolios. Commercially, the case pits two competitors for the same chronic-rhinitis procedure (RhinAer® vs. NEUROMARK®) in a market serving tens of millions of patients, giving the validity of the foundational Foundry patents outsized industry significance. (Sources: D.I. 1, 17, 40, 74, 81, 89, 93, 106, 107; Justia/PACER docket for 1:23-cv-00756; PTACTS filings in IPR2025-01125; DocketAlarm and GreyB IP Verse records for IPR2024-00669, -00277, and -00278; Finnegan case page; Law360's "PTAB Knocks Out Claims In 3 Nasal Airway Patents." Some details — e.g., NEUROMARK's specific FDA regulatory pathway — are not confirmed by the sources reviewed and are omitted.)

I'll research this case thoroughly, starting with the docket and key filings.

I'm getting a good picture. Let me dig deeper into specific docket events, the stay, IPR outcomes, and the current posture.

Good progress. Now let me look at the amended complaint's asserted patents, the counterclaim dismissal ruling, Federal Circuit appeals, and recent 2025-2026 docket activity.

I have gathered substantial information from multiple sources. Below is a chronological account of the key legal developments, with sourcing notes and explicit flags where facts could not be independently confirmed.

---

Aerin Medical Inc. et al. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00756-JLH (D. Del.)

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings

• 2023-07-11 — Complaint filed in the District of Delaware (C.A. No. 23-756), originally assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams (GBW); the case was later reassigned to Judge Jennifer L. Hall (docket entries thereafter cite "1:23-cv-00756-JLH"). Plaintiffs are Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC; defendants are Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd. (Justia docket; CourtListener docket).
• 2023-10-16 — Amended Complaint for Patent Infringement filed, asserting eight patents against Neurent's NEUROMARK® System (device + generator) used to treat 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 — the patent listed in the case metadata), and 11,766,286 ('286) (Amended Complaint, Ex. 1035 to IPR2024-00279, at p. 1). Jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C. § 271; jury demand.
• 2023-08/09 — Stipulations extended Neurent's answer deadline to 2023-10-02 (D.I. 8, SO ORDERED 2023-08-03).
• 2024-03-21 — Neurent filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint and counterclaims for tortious interference and unfair competition (D.I. 40). No patent-infringement counterclaim at that stage.
• 2024-04-25 — Plaintiffs answered the counterclaims (D.I. 60).
• 2024-07-08 — Neurent filed First Amended Counterclaims (D.I. 81), adding a patent-infringement counterclaim asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,998,262 ('262) against Aerin's RhinAer® device, alongside the tortious-interference and unfair-competition counterclaims.
• 2024-09-24 — Neurent filed a separate Delaware suit, Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01070-JLH (D. Del.), asserting four of its own patents — '262, 12,089,889, 12,096,973, and 12,096,974 — against Aerin's RhinAer® (Neurent Mandatory Notices in IPR2025-01125; Justia docket).

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance

• Neurent's Motion for Partial Dismissal (D.I. 19/20) — Filed late 2023; denied by D.I. 74 (entered 2024-07-08) (Plaintiffs' Opening Brief, D.I. 94, at 8).
• Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss Original Counterclaims (D.I. 58/59) — Denied as moot (D.I. 82) after Neurent filed its First Amended Counterclaims (D.I. 81) (D.I. 94 at 8).
• Protective Order / Prosecution Bar Dispute (D.I. 66, 2024-05-08) — In a notable discovery-adjacent ruling (Magistrate Judge Fallon), the court adopted Neurent's proposed language barring plaintiffs' litigation counsel who had received confidential information from participating in motions to amend claims in the co-pending IPRs, finding that even limited involvement in the IPR amendment process "could defeat the purpose of implementing the prosecution bar" (Lexology summary citing D.I. 66).
• Stay Pending IPR (D.I. 92/93) — Parties stipulated to a stay; Judge Hall SO ORDERED the stay on 2024-08-08, staying the case until the PTAB issued final written decisions in IPR2024-00275, -00276, -00277, -00278, -00279, -00280, -00669, and -00282, and vacating all case deadlines (D.I. 93).
• Plaintiffs' Motion to Dismiss First Amended Counterclaims (D.I. 94/95, filed 2024-08-12) — Sought dismissal of the '262 infringement counterclaim on on-sale-bar grounds (arguing RhinAer® was sold before the '262 patent's April 9, 2020 priority date, making Neurent's infringement allegations "self-defeating") and dismissal of the tortious-interference/unfair-competition claims for implausible information-and-belief pleading, preemption, and Noerr-Pennington immunity. Briefing was extended (answering brief due 2024-12-20; reply due 2025-01-08, SO ORDERED 2024-12-02). I could not confirm a published ruling on this motion — it appears to have remained pending through the subsequent consolidation.
• Motion to Consolidate and Stay (D.I. 96 in 23-756 / D.I. 25 in 24-1070) — Argued in person before Judge Hall on 2025-02-28.
• Consolidation (D.I. 106, SO ORDERED 2025-03-18) — The two cases were consolidated for all purposes into lead case 23-756-JLH. The same day, Judge Hall entered an interim scheduling order concerning Neurent's patents-in-suit (D.I. 107), governing the case through initial infringement and invalidity contentions, and setting a status conference for 2025-08-08 (Neurent Mandatory Notices, IPR2025-01125; docket entries).

3. Claim Construction (Markman)

• No Markman hearing or claim-construction order was reached. The case was stayed from 2024-08-08 through the PTAB final written decisions (July 2025), before any claim construction occurred. The substantive claim-scope disputes instead played out before the PTAB (e.g., the "rows of bipolar electrode pairs" construction fight in IPR2024-00277). The post-consolidation scheduling order covered only initial infringement/validity contentions for Neurent's patents.

4. Discovery Milestones

• Limited fact discovery occurred pre-stay. The most strategically significant discovery milestone was the prosecution-bar ruling (D.I. 66, 2024-05-08), which constrained which counsel could work on IPR claim amendments after seeing Neurent's confidential information — a real competitive-advantage issue given the parallel IPR blitz.
• The stay (2024-08-08) halted discovery on Aerin/Foundry's eight asserted patents, and the litigation strategy shifted to the PTAB track.
• After consolidation (2025-03-18), discovery on Neurent's four counterclaim patents was governed by the interim scheduling order, but the parallel IPRs on those patents (IPR2025-01124 to -01127) were denied institution (see below), leaving those claims to proceed in the district court once the stay lifts.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, Post-Trial Motions

• No trial, verdict, or post-trial motions (JMOL, new trial, fee motions) have occurred. The case has never reached trial; it remains stayed/active at the pleading-to-scheduling stage.

6. Parallel PTAB Proceedings (Critical to This Case)

Neurent as Petitioner against Aerin/Foundry patents (challenging the eight asserted patents):

• IPR2024-00275 and IPR2024-00276 (filed 2024-01-18) — Terminated — adverse judgment against the patent owner (IP Verse statuses), removing those Aerin patents from play.
• IPR2024-00277 ('271 patent) — Instituted; Final Written Decision 2025-07-11 finding all challenged claims unpatentable (35 U.S.C. § 318(a)); oral argument held 2025-04-23 (PTAB FWD, IPR2024-00277). Appealed to the Federal Circuit (status: "Final Written Decision – Appealed").
• IPR2024-00278 ('318 patent) — Institution granted 2024-07-22; Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims unpatentable (status: "Final Written Decision – Appealed").
• IPR2024-00279 ('675 patent) — Final written decision issued (IP Verse status: "Final Written Decision"); exact outcome (unpatentability vs. survival) not confirmed in my search.
• IPR2024-00280 ('011 patent) — Instituted; outcome of FWD not individually confirmed in my search.
• IPR2024-00281 ('077 patent) — Terminated; superseded by IPR2024-00669 challenging the same patent.
• IPR2024-00669 ('077 patent — the metadata patent) — Filed 2024-04-03; institution granted 2024-07-23; Final Written Decision 2025-07-21 (termination date) holding all challenged claims (1–8 and 11) unpatentable over Makower + Fang + Edwards (and Stern), and dismissing Patent Owner's motion to exclude (DocketAlarm: "JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable … Dismissing Patent Owner's Motion to Exclude"). Appealed to the Federal Circuit (status: "Final Written Decision – Appealed"). This is the single most consequential development for the '077 patent: as of 2025-07-21, the PTAB has invalidated every challenged claim of the one patent named in the case metadata.

Aerin as Petitioner against Neurent's four counterclaim patents:

• IPR2025-01124 ('262), IPR2025-01125 ('889), IPR2025-01126 ('973), IPR2025-01127 ('974) — Filed June 2025; all denied institution on discretionary grounds ("Discretionary Denial," IP Verse statuses). These denials mean Neurent's four counterclaim patents survive PTAB review and remain viable in the consolidated district court case.

Effect on the litigation: The PTAB track effectively drove the district court: the stay (2024-08-08) was expressly conditioned on the IPR final written decisions, which issued in July 2025 and went against Aerin/Foundry on most challenged patents, including the '077 patent. Aerin has appealed the adverse final written decisions.

7. Federal Circuit Appeals / Present Posture

• Federal Circuit appeals pending — Justia identifies three appeals with Aerin Medical Inc. as appellant against Neurent Medical Inc./Ltd.: Nos. 25-2099, 25-2100, and 25-2101 (Justia case search). These correspond to the appealed PTAB final written decisions (most likely IPR2024-00277, -00278, and -00669, given their "Appealed" statuses), but I could not confirm the exact patent-to-docket-number mapping.
• District court posture: Active and stayed. The case was consolidated (2025-03-18), an interim schedule for Neurent's four patents was entered, and a status conference was set for 2025-08-08. No final judgment, settlement, or dismissal has been entered. The practical trajectory: with the '077 patent (and likely the '271, '318, and Foundry patents) invalidated by the PTAB and on appeal, Aerin/Foundry's infringement case is largely in limbo pending the Federal Circuit; Neurent's infringement counterclaims on its four patents remain pending in the district court after Aerin's IPR challenges were discretionarily denied.

---

Source Notes & Confidence Flags

• Well-sourced: Case number, filing date (2023-07-11), reassignment to Judge Hall, the eight asserted patents (Amended Complaint, filed as Ex. 1035 in IPR2024-00279), answer/counterclaim dates (D.I. 40, D.I. 81), denial of partial dismissal (D.I. 74), the stay order (D.I. 93, 2024-08-08), consolidation (D.I. 106/107, 2025-03-18), the protective-order/prosecution-bar ruling (D.I. 66, 2024-05-08), and the IPR docket history for IPR2024-00669 (instituted 2024-07-23; FWD 2025-07-21 finding all challenged claims unpatentable; appealed).
• Partially sourced / to verify on PACER: (1) the ruling (if any) on Plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the First Amended Counterclaims (D.I. 94–95); (2) the exact outcomes of the FWDs in IPR2024-00279 and IPR2024-00280; (3) the mapping of Federal Circuit Nos. 25-2099/25-2100/25-2101 to specific IPRs; and (4) whether the stay was formally lifted or extended after the July 2025 final written decisions (the case metadata still lists the case as "stayed").
• No evidence found of claim construction, trial, verdict, settlement, or fee awards — consistent with a case stayed at the pre-Markman stage.

Counsel of Record — Plaintiffs Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC

Aerin Medical Inc. et al. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00756 (D. Del.), filed July 11, 2023

Plaintiffs are represented by a two-firm team: McCarter & English, LLP (Delaware local counsel) and Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (pro hac vice / lead trial counsel). This is confirmed by the docket (D.I. 1, 10), the CourtListener party listing for this case, and Finnegan's own matter page, which states the firm is "Representing Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC in a patent infringement case involving medical devices for treating nasal airways" and in the parallel IPRs (IPR2024-00275, -00276, -00277, -00278, -00279, -00280, -00282, -00669).

Delaware Local Counsel — McCarter & English, LLP (Wilmington, DE)

1. Daniel M. Silver (#4758) — Lead Delaware counsel (designated "LEAD ATTORNEY" on the docket)

• Firm/location: Partner, McCarter & English, LLP, 405 N. King Street, 8th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801
• Notable experience: Chair of McCarter & English's Intellectual Property practice and one of Delaware's most active IP litigators; signed the original complaint (D.I. 1), the return of service (D.I. 7), and the waiver of service (D.I. 9). Regularly handles patent, Hatch-Waxman, and medical-device cases in D. Del., including numerous reported Markman and motion-to-dismiss decisions.

2. Alexandra M. Joyce (#6423) — Delaware local counsel ("ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED")

• Firm/location: McCarter & English, LLP, 405 N. King Street, 8th Floor, Wilmington, DE 19801
• Notable experience: Delaware IP litigator; filed plaintiffs' pro hac vice motion for the Finnegan team (D.I. 10) and handles day-to-day CM/ECF filings in the case.

Pro Hac Vice / Lead Trial Counsel — Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (Washington, DC)

Admitted pro hac vice by Order dated August 4, 2023 (D.I. 10; see also docket entry of Aug. 7, 2023 adding them for electronic noticing).

3. J. Michael Jakes — Lead trial counsel / pro hac vice (listed as "Of Counsel" on plaintiffs' IPR filings)

• Firm/location: Partner, Finnegan, Washington, DC (901 New York Avenue, NW)
• Notable experience: Former administrative patent judge (BPAI/PTAB) before joining Finnegan; nationally recognized for post-grant proceedings and Hatch-Waxman/medical-device litigation. Leads plaintiffs' defense of the eight asserted patents in the parallel IPR2024-00275 series.

4. Kathleen A. Daley — Trial counsel / pro hac vice

• Firm/location: Partner, Finnegan, Washington, DC
• Notable experience: Veteran Finnegan litigator with extensive district court and PTAB experience; co-signs plaintiffs' substantive briefs in this case and the co-pending IPRs.

5. Sonja W. Sahlsten — Trial counsel / pro hac vice

• Firm/location: Partner, Finnegan, Washington, DC
• Notable experience: Medical-device and electrical-arts litigator with deep IPR practice; part of the core team defending the asserted nasal-airway patents in the PTAB proceedings.

6. Christopher C. Howes — Trial counsel / pro hac vice (appeared later in the litigation)

• Firm/location: Finnegan, Washington, DC
• Notable experience: Patent litigator involved in the IPR defense work; admitted pro hac vice in the related Delaware case Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01070 (D. Del.) (PHV granted Oct. 15, 2024), confirming his active role on the Aerin-side team.

Additional notes / caveats

• In-house counsel: I found no evidence that in-house counsel for Aerin or The Foundry entered an appearance as counsel of record in this action; the docket reflects only the McCarter and Finnegan attorneys above.
• Posture change: The case was reassigned from Judge Gregory B. Williams to Judge Jennifer L. Hall (2024 filings carry the "JLH" caption, e.g., D.I. 94, filed Aug. 12, 2024). The case is stayed following PTAB institution of IPR2024-00669, and a docket entry on September 12, 2025 reflects a "Notice re Attorney Appearance – Requesting Removal of Co-Counsel" (D.I. 130). I could not verify from public sources which attorney(s) that notice covers; it may indicate a team member has since withdrawn, so the current roster should be confirmed against PACER.
• Defendants' counsel (for contrast, not plaintiffs): Neurent is represented locally by Jack B. Blumenfeld and Brian P. Egan (Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell, Wilmington) and pro hac vice by Gregory H. Lantier, David L. Cavanaugh, Alexis R. Cohen, and Joshua L. Stern (WilmerHale) (D.I. 11, Aug. 22, 2023).

Key sources: Justia docket for 1:2023cv00756 (D.I. 1, 7, 9, 10, 11); CourtListener party/docket pages for Docket No. 67599357; PTAB filings in IPR2025-01125 (signature block listing Finnegan and McCarter attorneys as "Attorneys for Plaintiffs"); Finnegan matter page ("Aerin Medical Inc. et al. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al., 1:23-cv-00756, D. Del., Judge Hall").

Counsel of Record for Defendants Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd.

In Aerin Medical Inc. et al. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00756 (D. Del.), the defendants are represented by a two-firm structure typical of Delaware patent litigation: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP as Delaware local counsel and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale) as national/pro hac vice litigation counsel. The case was originally assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams and later reassigned to Judge Jennifer L. Hall (docket entries now bear the 1:23-cv-00756-JLH caption; see, e.g., D.I. 94, filed 08/12/24). It is stayed following PTAB institution of IPR2024-00669 (among related IPRs).

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

1. Jack B. Blumenfeld — Delaware local counsel

• Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, 1201 North Market Street, Wilmington, DE.
• Role: Local counsel; first appeared for defendants in the case by filing the stipulation extending Neurent's time to respond to the complaint (D.I. 8, filed 08/01/2023, signed by Judge Williams 08/03/2023). Justia's docket lists Blumenfeld among the attorneys of record for the defendants.
• Experience: A dean of Delaware IP litigation; has served as Delaware lead counsel in dozens of high-stakes patent cases over decades (Morris Nichols' IP group is perennially top-ranked; Blumenfeld is a Chambers USA Delaware IP mainstay).

2. Brian P. Egan — Delaware local counsel

• Firm: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE (IP Litigation Practice Group Coordinator).
• Role: Local counsel of record; filed the defendants' motion for pro hac vice admission of the WilmerHale team (D.I. 11, filed 08/22/2023; granted 08/23/2023). He also appears as Neurent's local counsel in the related mirror suit, Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01070 (D. Del.).
• Experience: Former USPTO patent examiner (chemical arts); Chambers USA Band 3 (Delaware IP); trial and PTAB experience representing Intel, Google, Comcast, Edwards Lifesciences, Thermo Fisher, Nichia, and others; argued cases through trial in Delaware as lead and Delaware counsel.

Pro hac vice / lead litigation counsel — WilmerHale (Washington, DC)

Admitted pro hac vice for Neurent by order dated August 23, 2023 (D.I. 11; "SO ORDERED" by Judge Williams). Per WilmerHale's PTAB filings and the record, these attorneys function as Neurent's lead and supporting national trial counsel.

3. Gregory H. Lantier — Lead counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm: WilmerHale, 2100 Pennsylvania Avenue NW, Washington, DC (partner).
• Role: Lead litigation counsel; co-counsel for Neurent in the Delaware case and in the related IPRs (IPR2024-00275 through -00282, -00669). His pro hac vice declaration (Ex. 1081 in IPR2024-00277) confirms he is a WilmerHale partner in Washington, DC with 20+ years of patent litigation practice.
• Experience: Notable matters include the USAA/PNC Bank IPR wars, Intel Corp. v. VLSI Tech. LLC (IPR2021-01192), and Medtronic Vascular v. TMT Systems (IPR2021-01532).

4. David L. Cavanaugh — Lead counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm: WilmerHale, Washington, DC (partner; widely recognized patent trial lawyer).
• Role: Lead litigation counsel for Neurent in the district court case and lead petitioner's counsel in the related IPRs; argued the consolidated IPR oral hearing (IPR2024-00277/-00278/-00282) on April 23, 2025, and continues to represent Neurent on the related Federal Circuit appeal (Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Inc., No. 25-2101 (Fed. Cir.), where Justia lists him as appellee's counsel).
• Experience: One of the most experienced patent litigators at the bar, with decades of district court and Federal Circuit trial work (long-running representations for technology and life-sciences clients). Named lead on the PTAB hearing transcript as "DAVID L. CAVANAUGH, ESQ." of WilmerHale.

5. Alexis R. Cohen — Litigation counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm: WilmerHale, Washington, DC (partner).
• Role: Admitted pro hac vice alongside Lantier/Cavanaugh/Stern (D.I. 11); co-argued the consolidated IPR hearing with Cavanaugh (identified as "ALEXIS COHEN, ESQ.," WilmerHale, in the April 23, 2025 hearing transcript).
• Experience: Patent litigation and PTAB practice; part of the Neurent trial team across the district court and IPR tracks.

6. Joshua L. Stern — Litigation counsel (pro hac vice)

• Firm: WilmerHale, Washington, DC.
• Role: Admitted pro hac vice (D.I. 11); also admitted pro hac vice before the PTAB in the related IPRs (Order Granting PHV of Joshua L. Stern and Gregory H. Lantier, IPR2024-00278, Paper 19); participated in the consolidated IPR oral argument ("JOSH STERN, ESQ.," WilmerHale).
• Experience: Patent litigation and post-grant proceedings; member of the WilmerHale Neurent team.

Additional attorneys to note (related proceedings / potential co-counsel)

• Alexander Nemtzow (WilmerHale) — appeared and participated on behalf of Neurent at the consolidated IPR oral argument (April 23, 2025 transcript) but I did not confirm a separate pro hac vice entry in the district court docket.
• David P. Yin and Bobby G. Hampton (WilmerHale) — admitted pro hac vice for Neurent in the related action Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01070 (D. Del.) (motion granted 11/06/2024). I could not confirm from public docket text whether they have separately entered appearances in 1:23-cv-00756; their appearance in the main case should be verified on PACER if needed.
• In-house counsel: No Neurent in-house attorney appears as counsel of record on the public docket. At the PTAB oral hearing, Stephen Horan appeared only as a "company representative from Neurent," not as counsel. Neurent's in-house legal team is not identified in the publicly available filings.

Sources and grounding

• Justia docket for 1:23-cv-00756 (D.I. 8 Blumenfeld stipulation; D.I. 11 Egan-filed PHV motion; 08/23/2023 order granting PHV for Lantier, Cavanaugh, Cohen, Stern): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2023cv00756/83024
• CourtListener parties/docket for 1:23-cv-00756: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67599357/aerin-medical-inc-v-neurent-medical-inc/
• Justia docket for related case 1:24-cv-01070 (PHV for Yin, Hampton; Egan as local counsel): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/delaware/dedce/1:2024cv01070/86944
• Lantier PHV declaration, IPR2024-00277, Ex. 1081 (WilmerHale, Washington DC partner status and IPR experience)
• PTAB consolidated hearing transcript, IPR2024-00277/-00278/-00282 (April 23, 2025) identifying Cavanaugh, Cohen, Stern, Nemtzow (WilmerHale) and company rep Stephen Horan
• Justia Federal Circuit docket, Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Inc., No. 25-2101 (Cavanaugh for appellee Neurent): https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-2101
• Morris Nichols bios for Egan and Blumenfeld (firm site; Chambers USA; IAM Patent 1000; Lawdragon)

Caveat: The public docket text does not formally designate which WilmerHale attorney is "lead" versus "of counsel" for the district court case; my role labels reflect filing signatures, the PHV motion, the PTAB hearing transcript, and firm practice conventions. For a definitive attorney-of-record list with role designations, a PACER query of the case's attorney docket (or the CM/ECF "attorneys" report) would be authoritative.