Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Limited

This case, IPR2025-01126, involved an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition filed by Aerin Medical Inc. against Neurent Medical Limited before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB). Aerin Medical Inc. is a U.S.-based operating company that develops non-invasive therapeutic devices for ear, nose, and throat (ENT) conditions, particularly focused on nasal airway obstruction and chronic rhinitis, with core products like the VivAer® and RhinAer® systems which utilize temperature-controlled radiofrequency technology. Neurent Medical Limited is an Irish medical device company that also operates in the ENT space, specializing in smart, minimally invasive devices for treating rhinitis, such as its NEUROMARK system that uses a hand-held radio-frequency device to deliver targeted energy within the nasal cavity. Both parties are operating companies competing in the market for nasal treatment solutions.

The IPR petition challenged U.S. Patent No. 12,096,973, titled "Neuromodulation Device for Treating Rhinitis," which is assigned to Neurent Medical Limited. This patent describes systems and methods for improving sleep by treating rhinitis, congestion, and/or rhinorrhea through the delivery of radiofrequency (RF) energy via a multi-electrode end effector into a patient's sino-nasal cavity to disrupt neural signals. The IPR was initiated by Aerin Medical Inc. in response to an underlying patent infringement lawsuit, Aerin Medical Inc. et al. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al. (Case No. 1:23-cv-00756-JLH), filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, where Neurent Medical accused Aerin Medical's products (likely their VivAer® and RhinAer® systems) of infringing this patent and others.

The procedural posture is an IPR before the PTAB, a specialized administrative body of the USPTO. The petition, filed on June 25, 2025, sought to cancel claims 1-30 of the '973 patent as unpatentable. However, the IPR was terminated on November 20, 2025, with a "Not Instituted - Procedural" status. This outcome is notable because it signifies that the PTAB declined to initiate a full review of the patent's validity, not on the merits of whether the claims were patentable, but due to a procedural deficiency or a discretionary decision. This IPR is part of broader intellectual property litigation between these two medical device companies, including multiple district court actions and reciprocal IPRs, reflecting significant competition in the field of minimally invasive treatments for nasal conditions.

The Inter Partes Review (IPR) case, IPR2025-01126, involved Aerin Medical Inc. as the petitioner and Neurent Medical Limited as the patent owner, concerning U.S. Patent No. 12,096,973. This IPR was part of broader patent disputes between the two companies, including parallel district court litigation.

Here is a chronological overview of the key legal developments and outcome for IPR2025-01126:

Parallel Litigation Context:

• 2023-07-11: Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC, filed a patent infringement lawsuit against Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd. in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, case number 1:23-cv-00756.
• 2024-09-24: Neurent Medical Ltd. filed a separate patent infringement action against Aerin Medical Inc. in the District of Delaware, case number 1:24-cv-01070, asserting infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 12,096,973, 12,096,974, and 12,098,889.
• 2025-03-18: The district court cases, 1:23-cv-00756 and 1:24-cv-01070, were consolidated for all purposes under the lead case 1:23-cv-00756.
• 2025-03-26: The United States Patent and Trademark Office (USPTO) announced changes to the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) trial institution process, creating a bifurcated approach where the Director would first decide whether to exercise discretion to deny a petition, prior to a merits decision. These changes, particularly the Director's increased discretionary authority, became effective for institution decisions around October 20, 2025.
• August 2024 (exact date not specified but prior to Sept 2025): The district court in C.A. No. 23-756 entered a stipulation staying the action in its entirety, including claims related to Aerin/Foundry Patents and Neurent's counterclaims, pending Final Written Decisions in related IPR proceedings involving Aerin/Foundry Patents.

IPR2025-01126 Proceedings:

• 2025-06-25: Aerin Medical Inc. filed a Petition for Inter Partes Review, IPR2025-01126, challenging claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,973, owned by Neurent Medical Limited. The petition asserted grounds of unpatentability based on obviousness over the prior art reference Townley (Application # 2016/0331459). This IPR was one of several filed by Aerin challenging Neurent's patents around the same time (June 19, 24, 25, and 27, 2025).
• 2025-10-08: Neurent Medical Limited submitted its Patent Owner Preliminary Response.
• 2025-11-20: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued a Director Discretionary Decision to deny institution of the IPR. The case status was recorded as "Discretionary Denial" and "Not Instituted - Procedural." This decision aligned with the USPTO Director's newly emphasized policy framework for discretionary denial, aiming to ensure PTAB serves as an alternative to, not an expansion of, district court patent litigation.
• 2025-11-20: The IPR proceeding was terminated.

Outcome:
IPR2025-01126 was not instituted, and therefore terminated, due to a discretionary denial by the USPTO Director on procedural grounds. This meant the PTAB did not proceed to a full merits review of the patentability of claims 1-30 of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,973. The district court litigation between Aerin Medical and Neurent Medical continues, with a stay in place for some claims pending IPR outcomes on other patents.

Aerin Medical Inc., the petitioner in IPR2025-01126, was represented by attorneys from Greenberg Traurig, LLP.

The identified counsel are:

• Heath J. Briggs
  • Role: Counsel (appears to be lead counsel, as he signed the Petitioner's Request for Refund)
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Denver, CO
  • Experience Note: Heath Briggs is a shareholder at Greenberg Traurig, focusing on patent litigation, post-grant proceedings, and IP due diligence.

Additional attorneys from Greenberg Traurig LLP also listed as involved in the case include:

• Trenton A. Ward
  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig, LLP (office location not specified in search results, but likely connected to the firm's IP practice)
  • Experience Note: Trenton Ward is a shareholder at Greenberg Traurig, focusing on patent and other intellectual property litigation.
• Elana Araj
  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig, LLP (office location not specified)
  • Experience Note: Elana Araj is an associate at Greenberg Traurig, practicing intellectual property and technology litigation.
• Benjamin P. Gilford
  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig, LLP (office location not specified)
  • Experience Note: Benjamin Gilford is an associate at Greenberg Traurig, focusing on intellectual property and patent litigation.
• Emma F. Cohen
  • Role: Attorney
  • Firm: Greenberg Traurig, LLP (office location not specified)
  • Experience Note: Emma Cohen is an attorney at Greenberg Traurig, with experience in intellectual property matters.

Neurent Medical Limited, the defendant (Patent Owner) in IPR2025-01126, was represented by attorneys from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP.

The counsel of record for Neurent Medical Limited includes:

• David L. Cavanaugh

  • Role: Lead Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
  • Office Location: While not explicitly stated for this case, David L. Cavanaugh is often associated with the firm's Boston or Washington D.C. offices, which are prominent for patent litigation.
  • Experience Note: David L. Cavanaugh is listed in WilmerHale's "PTAB/USPTO Update - March 2026", indicating his involvement and expertise in post-grant proceedings. He was also explicitly identified as a lead counsel for the Patent Owner.

• Alexis Cohen

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Experience Note: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Alexander Nemtzow

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Experience Note: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Gilbert Smolenski

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Experience Note: Not specified in the provided search results.

• Bobby Hampton

  • Role: Counsel
  • Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP
  • Office Location: Not specified in the provided search results.
  • Experience Note: Not specified in the provided search results.