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

Aerin Medical Inc. has filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01124, against Neurent Medical Ltd. et al. concerning U.S. Patent No. 11,998,262. This IPR is part of a larger patent dispute between two medical device companies operating in the rhinology and ENT (Ear, Nose, and Throat) space. Aerin Medical Inc., headquartered in Mountain View, California, is a privately held, venture-backed company specializing in minimally invasive solutions for chronic nasal conditions, including nasal airway obstruction with its VivAer® product and chronic rhinitis with its RhinAer® device. These products utilize proprietary temperature- and impedance-controlled radiofrequency technology. Neurent Medical Ltd., based in Galway, Ireland, is also a venture-backed MedTech company focused on innovative non-surgical interventions for chronic inflammatory sino-nasal diseases. Neurent Medical's flagship product, the NEUROMARK® System, also employs impedance-controlled multipoint radiofrequency technology to treat chronic rhinitis by disrupting posterior nasal nerves.

The patent at issue, U.S. Patent No. 11,998,262, is titled "Neuromodulation Device for Treating Rhinitis." It is assigned to Neurent Medical Ltd. The patent describes methods of treating nasal conditions such as rhinitis, congestion, and rhinorrhea using a claimed device to achieve specific outcomes, including improved sleep and nasal breathability. This IPR is a direct challenge to the validity of Neurent Medical's patent, which has been asserted against Aerin Medical's competing products in an underlying patent infringement litigation.

The procedural posture of this case is an Inter Partes Review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO. The petition was filed on June 18, 2025, but was ultimately "Not Instituted" on procedural grounds, with the PTAB issuing a "Deny" decision on November 5, 2025. This non-institution is particularly notable given a recent policy shift at the USPTO, where Director John Squires began personally overseeing institution decisions in October 2025, leading to a period of numerous summary denials without detailed reasoning, often referencing "newly issued patents and strategic choices" to strengthen patent rights and limit post-grant reviews. In this specific IPR, arguments against institution by Neurent Medical focused on the definition of a "Person Having Ordinary Skill in the Art" (POSITA) for treatment claims, contending that such a person would require clinical treatment experience or access to it, which Neurent argued Aerin's expert lacked. The IPR is closely linked to an ongoing patent infringement litigation in the U.S. District Court for the District of Delaware, Aerin Medical Inc. et al v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al, Case No. 1:2023cv00756-JLH, which was consolidated with Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc., C.A. No. 24-1070-JLH. Presided over by Judge Jennifer L. Hall, the district court action was largely stayed pending the outcomes of related IPRs, with the stay partially lifted for the '262 patent. This inter-partes dispute highlights the aggressive competition and strategic use of patent litigation and IPRs within the medical device industry, particularly for innovative, minimally invasive ENT treatments.

Aerin Medical Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01124, against Neurent Medical Ltd. et al. concerning US patent 11998262. The proceeding, filed at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) of the USPTO, ultimately resulted in a discretionary denial of institution.

Here is a chronological summary of the key legal developments and outcome for IPR2025-01124:

• June 18, 2025: IPR Petition Filed
  Aerin Medical Inc. filed its petition for Inter Partes Review (IPR2025-01124) challenging the patentability of claims in U.S. Patent No. 11,998,262, owned by Neurent Medical Ltd.. This IPR was part of a series of petitions (IPR2025-01124 to IPR2025-01127) filed by Aerin Medical against Neurent Medical's patents. These IPRs were filed in the context of a parallel patent infringement lawsuit, Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc. (C.A. No. 24-1070-JLH), in which Neurent asserted infringement of several patents, including the '262 patent, against Aerin.
• November 5, 2025: Institution Decision Denied
  The PTAB issued an "Institution Decision: Deny" for IPR2025-01124.
• November 19, 2025: Director Discretionary Decision Denied and Case Terminated
  The PTAB issued a "Director Discretionary Decision: Deny" and officially terminated the proceeding for IPR2025-01124. The status of the IPR is listed as "Discretionary Denial".

The discretionary denial of institution for this IPR, and others filed by Aerin against Neurent, occurred during a period (starting October 2025) when USPTO Director John Squires began personally overseeing IPR and Post-Grant Review (PGR) institution decisions, often issuing summary notices denying institution based on discretionary considerations. While specific detailed reasoning for the denial in IPR2025-01124 was not publicly detailed in summary notices, such discretionary denials often considered factors like "settled expectations" for newly issued patents, petitioner delay, substantial investment in parallel district court proceedings, and overlap between IPR grounds and court invalidity contentions. Arguments regarding the definition of a Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) and the necessary experience in treating nasal conditions for such a person were raised by the parties in preliminary responses and replies in related IPRs, forming part of the substantive arguments before the Board's discretionary decision.

The broader patent infringement litigation between Aerin Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd. et al. in district court was subject to stipulations and orders, including a stay of certain claims pending the outcomes of IPRs, although interim scheduling for discovery on Neurent's patents was also in place. The denial of institution in IPR2025-01124 means the validity of U.S. Patent No. 11,998,262, as challenged by Aerin Medical, would not be reviewed by the PTAB through this specific IPR proceeding, potentially leaving its validity to be litigated in the parallel district court case.

Aerin Medical Inc., the petitioner in IPR2025-01124, is represented by counsel from Greenberg Traurig, LLP and Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP. While specific docket entries for IPR2025-01124 directly listing all attorneys from both firms were not exhaustively available in the provided search results, evidence from closely related IPRs involving Aerin Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd. demonstrates the consistent involvement of these legal teams.

The following attorneys represent Aerin Medical Inc.:

From Greenberg Traurig, LLP:

• Heath J. Briggs
  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Denver, CO.
  • Experience: Co-Chair of Greenberg Traurig's Global Patents and Innovation Strategies Group, a registered patent attorney with over 19 years of patent prosecution experience and 10 years of AIA trial experience. He has represented entities in over 120 inter partes review (IPR) proceedings across various technologies including medical devices, computer software, and telecommunications. He has been ranked among the most active IPR attorneys in the country.
• Trenton A. Ward
  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Greenberg Traurig, LLP, Atlanta, GA.
  • Experience: Co-Chair of the firm's Patent Post-Grant Group with over 20 years of patent law experience, including five years as a Lead Administrative Patent Judge at the PTAB, where he adjudicated more than 250 America Invents Act (AIA) trial proceedings. His practice focuses on patent litigation, including PTAB trials, District Court trials, and Federal Circuit appeals, across technologies such as medical devices.
• Elana B. Araj
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Greenberg Traurig, LLP. (Office location not specified in provided snippets, but firm generally operates globally). She is listed on the firm's website as focusing her practice on patent, trademark, and copyright infringement litigation.
  • Experience: Focuses on patent, trademark, and copyright infringement litigation in district court and post-grant review proceedings before the U.S. Patent & Trademark Office. She has experience in all stages of litigation and advises clients across industries including consumer products, healthcare, and medical devices. Prior to practicing law, she was a patent examiner for four years.
• Benjamin P. Gilford
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Greenberg Traurig, LLP. (Office location not specified in provided snippets, but firm generally operates globally).
  • Experience: Focuses on a broad range of intellectual property matters, including patent and trademark litigation. He has experience with complex patent litigation cases in federal district courts covering technologies such as medical devices, computer hardware and software, and other consumer and industrial electronics and mechanical devices.
• Emma F. Cohen
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Greenberg Traurig, LLP, New York, NY.
  • Experience: Focuses on a range of intellectual property matters, including patent, trademark, copyright, and trade secret disputes. Her complex patent litigation experience includes ANDA/Hatch Waxman matters, electronics, and various software-based technologies.
• Declan Stone-Murphy
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Greenberg Traurig, LLP. (Office location not specified in provided snippets, but firm generally operates globally).
  • Experience: A registered patent attorney focusing on patent prosecution and worldwide patent portfolio management. He advises on intellectual property matters across a range of technologies, including medical devices, material science, and chemical engineering.

From Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP:
Finnegan represents Aerin Medical Inc. in a patent infringement case and "a series of inter partes review (IPR) challenges" against Neurent Medical Inc. et al.. While specifically listed as Respondent counsel in IPR2024-00277, their stated representation in a "series" of IPRs for Aerin against Neurent indicates their involvement.

• Jason E. Stach
  • Role: Lead Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Atlanta, GA.
  • Experience: Leads Finnegan's PTAB trials practice with extensive experience in challenging and defending patents in post-grant proceedings, district court litigation, and Federal Circuit appeals. He handles cases involving various technologies, including medical devices, electrical, computer, and software technologies. He has been lead or backup counsel in over 125 PTAB trials.
• Kathleen A. Daley
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC.
  • Experience: Possesses significant experience in trial and appellate patent litigation, including before U.S. district courts, the ITC, and the Federal Circuit. She has been involved in more than 60 post-grant proceedings before the PTAB, representing both petitioners and patent owners, with a particular emphasis on medical devices.
• Sonja W. Sahlsten
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC.
  • Experience: Focuses on patent litigation before U.S. district courts and the U.S. International Trade Commission (ITC), as well as patent appeals to the Federal Circuit. She has a technical background in mechanical engineering with experience in medical device and industrial manufacturing technologies. She has successfully represented parties in post-grant proceedings such as IPR and ex parte reexamination.
• Anthony J. Berlenbach
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC.
  • Experience: Focuses on patent and trade secret litigation across all phases and forums, including U.S. district courts, the PTAB, the ITC, and the Federal Circuit. He has a technical background in mechanical and biomedical engineering and works with various technologies, including medical devices and mechanical systems.
• Christopher C. Howes
  • Role: Counsel.
  • Firm & Office Location: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP, Washington, DC.
  • Experience: Concentrates on district court litigation, including patent, trade secret, and trademark matters, as well as client counseling and patent portfolio development. His technical experience is in aerospace engineering. He actively participates in jury trials and handles all aspects of trial preparation.

Here is the counsel of record representing Neurent Medical Ltd. in IPR2025-01124:

David L. Cavanaugh

• Role: Partner, Chair of Post-Grant Proceedings Group (Lead Counsel)
• Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.
• Experience Note: Has extensive experience as lead counsel or counsel of record in over 400 Inter Partes Review (IPR) proceedings before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB), and previously served as senior patent counsel at Boston Scientific Corporation.

Alexis R. Cohen

• Role: Partner (Counsel)
• Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C. (at the time of the IPR proceedings)
• Experience Note: Focuses her practice on complex patent litigation and post-grant proceedings, particularly within the medical device and life sciences industries, and has represented clients before the PTAB. (Note: Ms. Cohen joined Sidley Austin LLP in January 2026, after the relevant IPR proceedings.)

Gregory H. Lantier

• Role: Partner (Counsel)
• Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C. (at the time of the IPR proceedings)
• Experience Note: A first-chair trial lawyer and appellate advocate with a nationally recognized post-grant proceedings practice before the PTAB, representing both petitioners and patent owners in numerous inter partes review proceedings. (Note: Mr. Lantier joined Sidley Austin LLP in January 2026, after the relevant IPR proceedings.)

Joshua L. Stern

• Role: Partner (Counsel)
• Firm: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.
• Experience Note: Focuses on intellectual property and complex commercial litigation, including matters before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) involving various technologies such as medical devices.