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

Case Overview & Background

Parties and their roles. This is a consolidated Federal Circuit appeal in a patent dispute between two operating medical-device companies competing in the emerging chronic-rhinitis neuromodulation space — not an NPE assertion. Aerin Medical Inc. (appellant/patent owner) is a Delaware corporation headquartered in Mountain View, California, that develops and markets RF-based treatments for chronic rhinitis and nasal airway obstruction, including the FDA-cleared VivAer® (cleared 2018) and RhinAer® (cleared March 2020) styluses. Aerin's co-plaintiff and co-owner of the asserted patents, The Foundry, LLC, is a Menlo Park medical-device incubator that co-developed the technology. Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd. (appellees/petitioners) are, respectively, a Delaware subsidiary and its Irish parent (Galway); they developed the NEUROMARK® System, an RF neuromodulation platform for treating rhinitis, which Aerin and Foundry accused of infringement. Notably, Neurent used Aerin's RhinAer as the 510(k) predicate device for NEUROMARK — a fact Aerin highlighted in the parallel district-court litigation. Both sides are private, venture-backed competitors; there is no university or PAE involvement.

Accused product, asserted patents, and technology. In the underlying action, Aerin Medical Inc. et al. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00756-JLH (D. Del., filed July 11, 2023), Aerin and Foundry accused Neurent's NEUROMARK System — a handheld end effector with expandable leaflets carrying bipolar RF electrodes that ablate posterior nasal nerves — of infringing eight patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,766,286 ("Methods and Devices to Treat Nasal Airways," issued Sept. 26, 2023; inventors Scott J. Wolf and Andrew Frazier). The '286 patent is directed to an RF device for treating nasal airways comprising a handle, shaft, and treatment element with multiple pairs of bipolar RF electrodes, an impedance sensor, and individual RF output channels per electrode pair for independent energy delivery. Neurent counterclaimed that Aerin's RhinAer infringed Neurent's own '262 patent and asserted tortious-interference/unfair-competition claims, which Aerin moved to dismiss (mooting in part on the on-sale bar and Noerr-Pennington grounds). The district-court action was stayed pending the IPRs.

Procedural posture and venue significance. On January 18, 2024, Neurent petitioned for IPR2024-00282 challenging claims 1–4 and 7–9 of the '286 patent as obvious. A PTAB panel of APJs Michael J. Fitzpatrick, Michael A. Valek (opinion author), and Zhenyu Yang instituted on July 22, 2024, held a consolidated oral hearing on April 23, 2025 (with the parallel IPRs on the '271 and '318 patents), and issued a Final Written Decision on July 11, 2025, holding all challenged claims unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 — primarily over Edwards-'535 in view of Stern, and alternative combinations including Makower and Liang. Aerin appealed on September 12, 2025; the appeal was docketed as No. 25-2101 and consolidated with 25-2099 (lead; IPR2024-00277, '271 patent) and 25-2100 (IPR2024-00278, '318 patent) by order of September 23, 2025. The certified list was received October 23, 2025, and briefing deadlines run under Fed. Cir. R. 31; no merits panel, oral argument, or decision has been announced as of the latest docket entries (Oct. 2025). The Federal Circuit's venue is exclusive and mandatory for IPR appeals under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c) and 319, and its review here is significant because the consolidated appeals encompass three of the eight patents asserted in the stayed Delaware case.

Why the case is notable. This is a head-to-head fight between direct competitors over the core IP of a fast-growing niche — minimally invasive RF neuromodulation for chronic rhinitis — where Law360's July 15, 2025 coverage ("PTAB Knocks Out Claims In 3 Nasal Airway Patents") flagged the PTAB's same-day invalidation across three Aerin patents. The appeals test whether the Board correctly combined a 1990s endometrial-ablation reference (Stern) with nasal-turbinate RF ablation art (Edwards, Makower, Liang) to find obviousness, and the "two rows of bipolar electrode pairs" / "multiple pairs of bipolar RF electrodes" claim-construction disputes recur across all three IPRs. The outcome will directly determine the viability of Aerin's infringement case against NEUROMARK and shape the parties' cross-assertions (Neurent's '262 patent and its own IPR challenges against Aerin, e.g., IPR2025-01124/01125), making this a bellwether for IPR-driven resolution of medical-device competitor litigation.

Sources: Federal Circuit dockets (Justia, 25-2101/25-2099/25-2100); PTAB records for IPR2024-00282/-00277/-00278 (Patexia, ex parte/AI-Lab, GreyB/ipVerse, Docket Alarm); Amended Complaint in 1:23-cv-00756 (Ex. 1035); Aerin's Aug. 12, 2024 opening brief on motion to dismiss Neurent's counterclaims (D.I. 94); Finnegan firm case page; Law360/Bloomberg Law summaries. Note: the full Law360 article text was not accessible, and no Federal Circuit merits filings beyond the October 2025 certified-list entry were verified.

Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Inc. — Key Legal Developments and Outcome

Important framing

The case you're asking about (Fed. Cir. No. 25-2101) is not an appeal from a district court infringement judgment. It is Aerin's appeal of the PTAB's Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00282 invalidating all challenged claims of U.S. Patent No. 11,766,286 (the "'286 patent"). The underlying infringement litigation is Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC v. Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., No. 1:23-cv-00756-JLH (D. Del.) (Judge Jennifer L. Hall), which is still active in the district court — no trial, verdict, or damages award has occurred. Below is the chronology across both the district court litigation and the PTAB/Federal Circuit track, which is where the real action has been.

---

1. Filing & initial pleadings

• 2023-07-11 — Aerin (and later The Foundry, LLC) filed the original complaint in D. Del., C.A. No. 23-756 (JLH), accusing Neurent's NEUROMARK® System of infringing eight patents: U.S. Patent Nos. 9,072,597; 9,415,194; 10,610,675; 10,894,011; 11,033,318; 11,241,271; 11,679,077; and 11,766,286 (the '286 patent at issue in this appeal). (See Am. Compl., Ex. 1035 in IPR2024-00279; Stipulation & [Proposed] Order to Consolidate, D.I. 105, reciting that C.A. 23-756 was filed 2023-07-11.)

• ~2023-10-02 — Amended Complaint filed, adding The Foundry, LLC as co-plaintiff; it "incorporates the complaint filed on July 11, 2023 . . . and relates back to the Complaint." (Am. Compl. ¶ 1; CourtListener docket, 1:23-cv-00756, "Complaint – Amended," 2023-10-02.)

• ~2023-10-02 — Neurent moved for partial dismissal (D.I. 19/20). That motion was denied (D.I. 74), with the order entered around 2024-07-08/09. (Aerin's Opening Br., D.I. 94, at 4–5; CourtListener docket showing "Order on Motion to Dismiss/Fail to State Claim" 2024-07-08/09.)

• 2024-03-21 — Neurent filed its Answer to the Amended Complaint and Counterclaims (D.I. 40), asserting state-law counterclaims for tortious interference and unfair competition based on Aerin's alleged communications with Neurent's prospective customers/investors. (CourtListener docket; D.I. 94 at 5.)

• 2024-04/05 — Aerin answered the counterclaims (D.I. 60, ~2024-05-01) and moved to dismiss them (D.I. 58/59, ~2024-04-25). That motion was denied as moot (D.I. 82) after Neurent amended. (D.I. 94 at 5.)

• 2024-07-08 — Neurent filed its First Amended Answer and Counterclaims (D.I. 81), adding a patent infringement counterclaim against Aerin asserting U.S. Patent No. 11,998,262 (the "'262 patent") against Aerin's RhinAer® system — Aerin argued the counterclaim was "self-defeating" because the RhinAer® was on sale before the '262 patent's priority date ("that which infringes if later, anticipates if earlier"). Neurent also re-pled tortious interference/unfair competition, expressly "on information and belief." (D.I. 81; D.I. 94 at 5, 10–11.)

• 2024-08-05/12 — Aerin moved to dismiss the First Amended Counterclaims (D.I. 89, sealed; opening brief D.I. 90/94 redacted), arguing the '262 counterclaim failed under the on-sale bar/anticipation logic and that the tort claims were inadequately pled, preempted, and barred by Noerr-Pennington. This motion was pending when the case was stayed — I have not confirmed a post-stay ruling on it. (D.I. 89–95.)

---

2. Discovery milestones with strategic significance

• 2024-01-18 — Neurent fired the strategic opening salvo: it filed eight IPR petitions against all eight asserted Aerin/Foundry patents — IPR2024-00275, -00276, -00277, -00278, -00279, -00280, -00669, and IPR2024-00282 (the '286 patent proceeding at issue here). (D.I. 93 stay order; IPVerse/Patexia PTAB records.)

• 2024-05-07 — The court resolved a protective-order/prosecution-bar dispute (D.I. 64–68). Judge Hall adopted Neurent's bright-line position: attorneys who accessed highly confidential information could still participate in IPRs as to original claims, but could not participate in obtaining new claims via IPR motions to amend — a "middle ground" notable because of the eight pending IPRs and the risk of "strategic narrowing." (Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Inc., No. 23-756, Dkt. 66, 68 (D. Del. May 7, 2024); Jones Day PTAB Litigation Blog / JD Supra, 2024-06-28.)

• 2024-07-22 — PTAB instituted IPR2024-00282 on all challenged claims (1–4, 7–9) of the '286 patent, on obviousness grounds over Edwards-'535 + Stern (and secondary combinations with Edwards-'886, Makower, and Liang). (Institution Decision, IPR2024-00282, Paper 9.)

• 2024-10-25 to 2025-03-04 — Full IPR merits phase: Patent Owner's Response (2024-10-25, with the Bikson declaration), Petitioners' Reply (2025-01-17), Sur-reply (2025-03-04), and expert depositions (Dr. Bikson for Aerin; Dr. Martin for Neurent) — standard IPR discovery, notable mainly for the volume of expert evidence on the obviousness of the bipolar-electrode/independent-channel/impedance-sensor device claim. (IPR2024-00282 docket.)

---

3. Stay pending IPR and the consolidation maneuver

• 2024-08-08 — The court entered the parties' stipulated stay (D.I. 92/93): the case was stayed "until such time as the PTAB has issued a final written decision in each of IPR2024-00275, -00276, -00277, -00278, -00279, -00280, -00669, and -00282," and all case deadlines were vacated. (D.I. 93, 2024-08-08.)

• 2024-09-24 — Neurent filed a separate infringement suit, Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc., No. 1:24-cv-01070-JLH (D. Del.), asserting its own patents (the '262, '973, '974, and '889 patents) against Aerin's RhinAer®. (Justia docket; D.I. 105.)

• 2024-11-26 — Aerin moved to consolidate 24-1070 into 23-756 and stay the consolidated case (D.I. 96/97); Neurent opposed (D.I. 99/100). (D.I. 96–101.)

• 2025-02-28 — After oral argument, Judge Hall granted the motion in part (D.I. 104), directing the parties to file a consolidation stipulation and an interim schedule. (D.I. 104.)

• 2025-03-18 — Court consolidated 24-1070 into lead case 23-756 for all purposes and lifted the stay only as to the '262 patent (D.I. 105/106), with an interim schedule covering the Neurent patents (D.I. 107). The Aerin/Foundry patents remained stayed pending the IPR FWDs. (D.I. 105–107.)

---

4. PTAB Final Written Decisions and their effect (the pivotal development)

• 2025-07-11 — PTAB issued Final Written Decisions in the three key IPRs (IPR2024-00277, -00278, and -00282), holding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious. In IPR2024-00282, the panel (APJs Valek [author], Fitzpatrick, Yang) invalidated all challenged claims 1–4 and 7–9 of the '286 patent under 35 U.S.C. § 103. (IPR2024-00282, Paper 38; Law360, "PTAB Knocks Out Claims In 3 Nasal Airway Patents," 2025-07-15; Bloomberg Law case summary, 2025-07-14.)

• Sibling outcomes (as tracked on PTAB databases): IPR2024-00275 and -00276 show as "Terminated – Adverse Judgment"; IPR2024-00277 (→ appeal 25-2099), IPR2024-00278 (→ appeal 25-2100), and IPR2024-00282 (→ appeal 25-2101) all went to Final Written Decision – Appealed; IPR2024-00279 (The Foundry patent) went to FWD without an identified appeal. (IPVerse/Patexia PTAB status pages.)

• Effect on the litigation: With the FWDs issued, the stay basis under D.I. 93 expired as to the Aerin/Foundry patents. The district court resumed case management — including 2025-08-06 "Order Cancelling Deadline" and 2025-08-19 order setting claim construction briefing and resetting scheduling deadlines (D.I. 130). (CourtListener docket.) The practical effect: Aerin's infringement claims on the '286 patent (and the two other appealed patents) are effectively on life support pending the Federal Circuit appeal, because the PTAB has already found the claims obvious.

• Aerin's counter-IPRs: In June 2025 Aerin filed its own IPRs against Neurent's patents (IPR2025-01124 through -01127, including IPR2025-01125 against the '262 patent). Those petitions were discretionarily denied (status "Discretionary Denial"), leaving Neurent's '262 infringement counterclaim/separate suit intact before Judge Hall. (IPVerse competitive-analysis page.) Note: I could not independently verify the substance of the denial orders, only the status.

---

5. Claim construction (Markman)

• No Markman ruling has been reached on the Aerin/Foundry patents. Because the case was stayed from 2024-08-08 until the IPR FWDs, claim construction never got underway in 2024–2025. The 2025-08-19 order (D.I. 130) reset claim construction briefing and scheduling deadlines, meaning the parties were in the briefing phase as of the last available docket data (October 2025). (CourtListener docket, 1:23-cv-00756.)
• A status conference was held 2025-08-08 (set by D.I. 104), and the parties were to propose a full schedule by 2025-08-01. No Markman opinion has been identified.

---

6. Trial / verdict / post-trial motions

• None. No trial, verdict, JMOL, new-trial motion, or fee determination has occurred in the district court. The consolidated case is in pre-Markman/post-stay case management as of the latest entries.

---

7. Appeal — present posture (this case)

• 2025-09-11 — Aerin (Patent Owner) filed its Notice of Appeal from the IPR2024-00282 FWD. (IPR2024-00282, Paper 39, filed 2025-09-11.)
• 2025-09-12 — Federal Circuit docketed appeal No. 25-2101 (Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd.). (Justia Fed. Cir. docket, 25-2101, Filing 1.)
• 2025-09-23 — Federal Circuit consolidated 25-2099 (lead), 25-2100, and 25-2101 — the three appeals from the three FWDs invalidating Aerin patents — and ordered certified lists by 2025-10-22. (Fed. Cir. Filings 2–3, 25-2099/2100/2101.)
• 2025-10-22/23 — Certified list received; brief deadlines now run under Fed. Cir. R. 31 (appellant's opening brief due roughly 60 days from service of the certified list, i.e., around late December 2025). (Fed. Cir. Filing 4, 2025-10-23.)
• Status: pending. No merits briefing, oral argument, or decision yet. Counsel of record for appellees includes David L. Cavanaugh (WilmerHale); Aerin's PTAB counsel included Sonja W. Sahlsten and Heather Briggs.

---

8. Settlement / dismissal / judgment

• None to date. No settlement, dismissal, or judgment has been entered in the district court. The case is active in two tracks:
  1. District court (D. Del., consolidated 23-756 / 24-1070): Aerin's patent claims stayed-then-reactivated post-FWD; Neurent's '262 counterclaim and separate patent claims proceeding; claim construction briefing underway as of late 2025; Aerin's motion to dismiss the amended counterclaims (D.I. 89) was pending at the stay and I could not confirm a ruling on it.
  2. Federal Circuit (25-2099/2100/2101 consolidated): Aerin appealing the PTAB invalidation of the '286 patent (and two sibling patents), with the certified list just filed (2025-10-22).

---

Bottom line

The "key legal development" in this dispute is not a trial outcome but the PTAB's 2025-07-11 Final Written Decision in IPR2024-00282, which invalidated all challenged claims (1–4, 7–9) of the '286 patent as obvious, plus two parallel FWDs against sibling Aerin patents. That triggered (a) Aerin's consolidated Federal Circuit appeal (25-2099/-2100/-2101, still pending, briefing not yet filed as of late October 2025) and (b) the resurrection of the underlying D. Del. litigation (23-756, consolidated with Neurent's 24-1070 suit), now in claim-construction case management with no trial date set. If the Federal Circuit affirms, Aerin's '286 infringement claims are effectively dead; if it reverses, the district court case on that patent revives. Meanwhile, Neurent's counter-suit on the '262 patent continues, with Aerin's attempted IPR counterattacks having been denied.

Source caveats: Docket dates for D. Del. and the Federal Circuit are from CourtListener/Justia public docket mirrors (last retrieved ~2025-10-23 for the Fed. Cir.; D. Del. docket through ~September 2025). PTAB event dates are from IPVerse/Patexia/ExParte PTAB trackers. I could not verify: (1) any ruling on Aerin's D.I. 89 motion to dismiss the amended counterclaims; (2) the specific patent-to-IPR mapping for every one of the eight IPRs (confirmed: IPR2024-00276 = '194 patent, IPR2024-00278 = '318 patent, IPR2024-00282 = '286 patent); and (3) the full text of the PTAB discretionary denials of Aerin's IPR2025-01124–01127 petitions.

I'll research the counsel of record for Aerin Medical (and co-plaintiff The Foundry, LLC) in both the underlying district court case and the Federal Circuit appeal.

I have good initial leads. Let me dig deeper into the Federal Circuit docket counsel, the Finnegan team, and local counsel details.

This is revealing an important split: Greenberg Traurig represented Aerin in some IPRs (as patent owner) while Finnegan represented The Foundry in others. Let me verify who represented Aerin in IPR2024-00282 (the '286 patent at issue in 25-2101) and check the Federal Circuit dockets for the consolidated appeals.

Based on my research, I can now provide the counsel of record analysis. One important structural point first: in the underlying infringement case (1:23-cv-00756-JLH, D. Del.), the plaintiffs are Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC, while the Federal Circuit appeal (25-2101) was brought by Aerin Medical Inc. alone (The Foundry was not a party to IPR2024-00282 and is not listed as an appellant). The representation differs by forum, so I've split the answer accordingly.

---

A. District Court — Plaintiffs' Counsel of Record (Aerin Medical Inc. et al. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00756-JLH, D. Del.)

Lead / pro hac vice counsel — Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (Washington, DC)

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

Note: Finnegan's public case page and attorney bios (Kathleen A. Daley, Christopher C. Howes, and Kathleen C. Galleher, a Finnegan associate in Reston, VA) also list the matter. I found no docket entry confirming Galleher as counsel of record, so she is best characterized as part of the Finnegan engagement team rather than of record. The district court action has been stayed since D.I. 93 (8/8/2024) pending the IPRs.

---

B. PTAB IPR2024-00282 (the '286 patent) and the Federal Circuit Appeal (No. 25-2101)

Patent-owner/appellant counsel — Greenberg Traurig, LLP

The Justia Federal Circuit docket for 25-2101 (last retrieved 10/23/2025) shows only Heath Briggs for appellant Aerin and David Langdon Cavanaugh (WilmerHale, for appellee Neurent) as counsel of record; the certified list was received 10/22/2025 and briefing deadlines were running under Fed. Cir. R. 31. No merits briefs, additional appearances, oral-argument calendar, or decision were verified. It is likely GT appellate counsel (e.g., Gilford, Ward) appear on the briefs, but I could not verify any filings beyond the October 2025 docket snapshot, so I will not speculate.

---

C. In-house counsel

None identified. No Aerin or Foundry in-house attorney appears of record in the D. Del. docket, the PTAB records, or the Federal Circuit docket I could access. If Aerin has a general counsel (its CEO is Matt Wilkinson, and the company is private), that person is not counsel of record in these proceedings.

---

Flags / conflicts in the sources (as instructed)

1. Finnegan vs. Greenberg Traurig on IPR2024-00282. Finnegan's public case page and attorney bios claim Finnegan represented "Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC" in IPR2024-00282, and one third-party aggregator (ipVerse/GreyB) lists "Sahlsten, Sonja et al." as respondent counsel for that IPR. However, the authoritative PTAB record — the Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices (8/28/2024) in the related IPR2024-00277 and the official hearing transcript of April 23, 2025 covering IPR2024-00282 — shows Greenberg Traurig (Gilford, Briggs, Ward) as counsel for patent owner Aerin. The most plausible reconciliation: Finnegan filed the initial patent-owner mandatory notices (Feb. 2024) and was then replaced/substituted by Greenberg Traurig for the Aerin-owned patents, while Finnegan continued for The Foundry in the Foundry-owned-patent IPRs (e.g., IPR2024-00280, where Daley signed as lead counsel on 2/8/2024). I could not obtain the initial 2/2024 mandatory notices for IPR2024-00282 to confirm the handoff, so this point should be treated as well-supported but not fully documented.
2. Federal Circuit docket is thin. Justia's 25-2101 docket (retrieved 10/23/2025) lists only Briggs and Cavanaugh; no PACER-verified entry-of-appearance or brief filings after that date were accessible.
3. The Finnegan bios and case page are marketing pages, not docket evidence of appearance for every listed attorney (e.g., Galleher).

Key sources: D. Del. Docket 1:23-cv-00756 (Justia/CourtListener: D.I. 10 PHV motion, 8/7/23 PHV entry, parties page); Finnegan case page and attorney bios (Daley, Howes, Galleher); PTAB IPR2024-00277 Updated Mandatory Notices (8/28/2024); IPR2024-00280 Patent Owner Mandatory Notices (2/8/2024); PTAB consolidated Hearing Transcript for IPR2024-00277/-00278/-00282 (filed 6/2/2025); Justia Federal Circuit docket 25-2101; GT LLP bio for Heath J. Briggs.

Counsel of Record for the Defendants (Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd.)

The "defendants" in the underlying patent infringement action are Neurent Medical Inc. (Delaware subsidiary) and Neurent Medical Ltd. (Irish parent) — the appellees in Federal Circuit appeal No. 25-2101. Their counsel of record spans three forums: the stayed District of Delaware case (1:23-cv-00756-JLH), the PTAB proceeding on appeal (IPR2024-00282), and the Federal Circuit itself. The same core WilmerHale team represents Neurent in all three.

1. PTAB IPR2024-00282 (the proceeding on appeal) — Neurent as Petitioner

David L. Cavanaugh — Lead counsel / argued the April 23, 2025 oral hearing

• Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, DC (2100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW)
• Note: Veteran Federal Circuit and Hatch-Waxman patent litigator; long one of WilmerHale's lead patent-litigation partners, with numerous appeals and IPRs in the medical-device and pharma space. Identified as petitioner's lead counsel in the hearing transcript and on service lists; listed on the Justia docket for appeal 25-2101.

Gregory H. Lantier — Back-up counsel

• Firm: WilmerHale, Washington, DC
• Note: Senior IP/PTAB litigator at WilmerHale; admitted pro hac vice in the Delaware action on Neurent's behalf (D.I. 11, Aug. 22, 2023) and served on all three consolidated IPRs.

Alexis R. Cohen — Back-up counsel (argued/assisted at hearing)

• Firm: WilmerHale, Washington, DC
• Note: IPR/PTAB-focused litigator; appeared with Cavanaugh at the April 23, 2025 consolidated oral hearing and is on the PTAB service list for the '286 IPR.

Joshua L. Stern — Back-up counsel

• Firm: WilmerHale (DC office per hearing transcript)
• Note: Introduced at the oral hearing as WilmerHale counsel for Neurent; pro hac vice in the Delaware case alongside Lantier/Cavanaugh/Cohen.

Alexander Nemtzow — Back-up counsel

• Firm: WilmerHale, Washington, DC
• Note: On the certificate-of-service list in IPR2024-00282 (Aerin's objections filing, Jan. 2025) and introduced at the hearing as part of the WilmerHale team.

Sarah Murphy — Back-up counsel

• Firm: WilmerHale (email sarah.j.murphy@wilmerhale.com on the PTAB service list)
• Note: Appears on the WilmerHale IPR service address; junior member of the Neurent IPR team.

Sources: Record of Oral Hearing, IPR2024-00277/-00278/-00282 (Docket Alarm/PTAB transcript, June 2, 2025), listing "David L. Cavanaugh, Alexis Cohen, Alexander Nemtzow, Josh Stern — Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 2100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington DC" for Petitioner; Patent Owner's Objections to Evidence, IPR2024-00282 (PTACTS), certifying service on david.cavanaugh@wilmerhale.com, gregory.lantier@wilmerhale.com, alexis.cohen@wilmerhale.com, joshua.stern@wilmerhale.com, alex.nemtzow@wilmerhale.com, sarah.j.murphy@wilmerhale.com; ipverse/GreyB and UniCourt counsel listings for IPR2024-00282 ("Petitioner Counsel: Cavanaugh, David et al.").

2. Federal Circuit appeal No. 25-2101 (consolidated with 25-2099 lead and 25-2100) — Neurent as Appellee

David L. Cavanaugh — Counsel of record for appellees

• Firm: WilmerHale, Washington, DC
• Note: Per the Justia docket for 25-2101, "David Langdon Cavanaugh" is the listed attorney for the appellees (Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd.), with Heath Briggs (Greenberg Traurig) listed for appellant Aerin. Consistent with Cavanaugh's role as Neurent's lead PTAB counsel and the natural continuity to the § 141(c) appeal.
• Caveat: The public Justia docket shows no entries after the Oct. 23, 2025 certified-list filing, and the free docket feed does not display the individual entries of appearance (due Sept. 26, 2025) or the appellee brief (due under Fed. Cir. R. 31). The full appellee brief signature block is not yet publicly verified; the remaining WilmerHale attorneys above are expected co-counsel but are not individually confirmed on the CAFC docket as of the last available pull.

3. District of Delaware (1:23-cv-00756-JLH) — Neurent as Defendant

Gregory H. Lantier, David L. Cavanaugh, Alexis R. Cohen, Joshua L. Stern — Pro hac vice counsel for defendants

• Firm: WilmerHale (PHV granted Aug. 23, 2023, D.I. 11)
• Note: All four were admitted pro hac vice on Neurent's behalf in the infringement action Aerin and The Foundry brought against Neurent over the NEUROMARK® system.

Delaware local counsel — Not verified. The CourtListener/PACER party page for the district case confirms Neurent as defendant, and the PHV motion was filed on Neurent's behalf, but the free docket snippets do not disclose Neurent's Delaware local counsel by name (the only local counsel shown in my search results — Daniel M. Silver and Alexandra M. Joyce of McCarter & English — represent the plaintiffs Aerin/Foundry, not Neurent). I am flagging this as an unverified gap rather than guessing at the firm. Note also that D.I. 137 (Sept. 19, 2025) is a notice requesting removal of co-counsel, and several PHV appearances were added in late 2025 (D.I. 120, 127, 164, 171), but I could not confirm from available sources whether those additions are on the Neurent side.

---

Two flags on prior case-summary content

1. Counsel roles at the PTAB contradict the earlier summary's Finnegan reference. The prior summary suggested Finnegan represented Aerin in the IPRs (citing Finnegan's firm page). The actual PTAB record for IPR2024-00282 shows Greenberg Traurig (Heath J. Briggs, Denver — lead; Benjamin P. Gilford, Minneapolis; Trenton Ward, Atlanta; Elana Araj, New York; Declan Stone-Murphy, Boston; Emma Cohen, New York) as patent-owner counsel for Aerin, and WilmerHale as petitioner counsel for Neurent. Finnegan (J. Michael Jakes, Kathleen A. Daley, Sonja W. Sahlsten, Christopher C. Howes) is confirmed as Aerin's district-court litigation counsel (with McCarter & English as Delaware local counsel), but the IPR/appeal-side roles are GT for Aerin and WilmerHale for Neurent. The Finnegan page may be marketing overstatement or reflect a different subset of the eight IPRs; the hearing transcript and PTAB service lists are authoritative here.

2. On the Federal Circuit appeal, the appellee (Neurent) faces Greenberg Traurig, not Finnegan. Justia lists Heath Briggs (GT) as counsel for appellant Aerin on 25-2101 — consistent with GT's IPR role.

Key sources: Justia CAFC docket 25-2101 (retrieved Oct. 23, 2025); CourtListener/PACER docket 1:23-cv-00756-JLH (D. Del.); PTAB hearing transcript for IPR2024-00277/-00278/-00282 (Docket Alarm); PTACTS service certificates in IPR2024-00282; ipverse/GreyB and UniCourt counsel pages for IPR2024-00282; Law360 (July 15, 2025) coverage of the FWDs.