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

Case Overview and Background

Parties and the underlying dispute. This matter, docketed as Neurent Medical Inc. et al. v. Aerin Medical Inc., IPR2024-00282, is an inter partes review before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board — not a standalone infringement suit — and it is one front in a multi-theater patent war between two rival radiofrequency (RF) nasal-treatment device makers. The petitioners are Neurent Medical Inc. (a Delaware corporation based in Braintree, MA and the wholly owned U.S. subsidiary of Neurent Medical Ltd.) and Neurent Medical Ltd. (a privately held Irish company headquartered in Oranmore, Galway), which markets the FDA-cleared NEUROMARK® system for chronic rhinitis — a handheld device that deploys a curved, multi-electrode "end effector" to deliver impedance-controlled RF energy to the posterior nasal nerves. The patent owner, Aerin Medical Inc. (a Delaware corporation based in Mountain View, CA, venture-backed by OrbiMed and represented by Finnegan), is an operating ENT-device company whose FDA-cleared products are the VivAer® Stylus (nasal airway obstruction) and RhinAer® Stylus (chronic rhinitis). Aerin's co-plaintiff in the parallel litigation is The Foundry, LLC, the Menlo Park medical-device incubator that co-owns or exclusively licenses several of the asserted patents to Aerin. The predicate dispute is Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC v. Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., No. 1:23-cv-00756-JLH (D. Del.), in which Aerin/Foundry allege that Neurent's U.S. launch of the NEUROMARK® System (device plus generator) infringes eight Aerin/Foundry patents — notably, in Aerin's words, for "treating rhinitis using Aerin's and Foundry's patented technology." A striking fact in the record: Neurent used Aerin's RhinAer as the predicate device in its own FDA 510(k) submission for NEUROMARK (Am. Compl., D.I. 17; Aerin's IPR2025-01125 Exhibit 1023 brief).

Patent, technology, and procedural posture. The patent at issue is 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; application 17/327,254; priority back to 2011), one of the eight Aerin/Foundry patents asserted in Delaware. In one-line terms, the '286 patent claims an RF treatment device for nasal airways comprising a handle, shaft, and treatment element with multiple pairs of bipolar electrodes, an impedance sensor, and individual RF output channels per electrode pair to permit selective, independent energy delivery (claims 1–4 and 7–9 were challenged). Neurent petitioned on January 18, 2024, the Board (APJs Michael A. Valek — author of the final decision — Michael J. Fitzpatrick, and Zhenyu Yang) instituted review on July 22, 2024, and on July 11, 2025 issued a Final Written Decision (Paper 38) under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) finding all challenged claims unpatentable as obvious (e.g., over Edwards-'535 (U.S. 6,517,535) in view of Stern (U.S. 5,562,720), with alternative grounds adding Makower and Liang). Aerin filed a Notice of Appeal on September 11, 2025; the appeal is docketed at the Federal Circuit (No. 25-2101, per Patexia and Justia listings, alongside related appeals 25-2099 and 25-2100 from the companion IPRs). In the district court, the case was originally assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams and later proceeded under Judge Jennifer L. Hall (C.A. No. 23-756-JLH); on August 8, 2024 the court entered the parties' stipulation staying the entire Delaware case (D.I. 93/94) pending the PTAB's final written decisions on the Aerin/Foundry patents, and Neurent's later-filed separate action (1:24-cv-01070-JLH, asserting Neurent's '262, '973, '974, and '889 patents against RhinAer) was consolidated into 23-cv-00756 on March 18, 2025 (D.I. 106). Delaware venue is driven by both companies' Delaware incorporation and commercial presence there; the stay made the PTAB the de facto first forum on validity.

Why the case is notable. This is not an NPE assertion — both sides are operating companies competing in the fast-growing in-office chronic-rhinitis and nasal-airway-obstruction RF market (alongside Stryker's ClariFix; one trade/clinical source reports Aerin has since been acquired by Stryker, though I could not independently verify that transaction from the search results). The IPR is notable for its coordinated, reciprocal IPR linkage: Neurent filed a near-simultaneous wave of petitions (IPR2024-00275 through -00282, plus IPR2024-00669) challenging essentially all of the Aerin/Foundry patents asserted in Delaware, the Board instituted on all of them, and its July 2025 Final Written Decisions — including this one — found the challenged claims unpatentable, prompting Aerin's coordinated appeals. Aerin has countersued at the PTAB against Neurent's own patents (IPR2025-01124 through -01127). The dispute also highlights the predicate-device dynamic in FDA 510(k) clearance: Neurent's own regulatory path relied on the very RhinAer product Aerin says embodies its patented technology, giving the infringement allegations (and Aerin's on-sale-bar defense to Neurent's '262 counterclaim) unusual strategic texture. Practitioner sources (e.g., Lexology) have also flagged a related protective-order dispute in the Delaware case (D.I. 66, May 8, 2024, before Judge Fallon) over restricting litigation counsel who see confidential information from participating in IPR motion-to-amend practice — a recurring ethics/prosecution-bar issue in parallel ITC/district-court-plus-IPR campaigns.

Verification notes: Party names, docket numbers, panel composition, institution and FWD dates, and the appeal are corroborated by PTAB docket aggregators (GreyB/ipverse, Patexia, Docket Alarm), the Finnegan matter page, and CourtListener/Justia dockets for 1:23-cv-00756 and 1:24-cv-01070. The technical claim summary comes from the Ex Parte petition-analysis summary of the '286 IPR and the amended complaint. The Stryker acquisition of Aerin is reported in a clinical practice source but was not independently verified against a primary announcement; treat that detail as unconfirmed.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome — Aerin Medical Inc. & The Foundry, LLC v. Neurent Medical Inc. & Neurent Medical Ltd. (No. 1:23-cv-00756-JLH, D. Del.) and Related PTAB/Federal Circuit Proceedings

Scope note. There has been no trial, verdict, or final judgment in the district court. The substantive validity fight was adjudicated at the PTAB in IPR2024-00282 (the '286 patent), with the district court stayed in the interim. The "outcome" of the merits to date is the PTAB's July 11, 2025 Final Written Decision finding all challenged claims of the '286 patent unpatentable, now on appeal to the Federal Circuit. Chronology below.

---

1. Filing and initial pleadings (2023)

• 2023-07-11 — Complaint filed. Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC sued Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd. in the District of Delaware, C.A. No. 23-756, asserting patent infringement under 35 U.S.C. § 271 and demanding a jury trial (D.I. 1; summons issued same day, D.I. 6). The case was assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams on 2023-07-19. Initial suit was based on the U.S. launch of Neurent's NEUROMARK® System, which Aerin/Foundry alleged "treat[s] rhinitis using Aerin's and Foundry's patented technology."
• 2023-07-12 — Service. Neurent Medical Inc. served; waiver of service for Neurent Medical Ltd. returned 2023-08-01 (D.I. 7, 9); answer deadline extended by stipulation to 2023-10-02 (D.I. 8, so ordered 2023-08-03).
• 2023-08 — Pro hac vice admissions. Finnegan (J. Michael Jakes, Kathleen Daley, Sonja Sahlsten) appeared for Aerin/Foundry (D.I. 10, so ordered 2023-08-04); Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr (Gregory Lantier, David Cavanaugh, Alexis Cohen, Joshua Stern) for Neurent (D.I. 11, so ordered 2023-08-23). Delaware local counsel: McCarter & English (Daniel Silver, Alexandra Joyce) for Aerin; Richards, Layton & Finger for Neurent.
• 2023 — Amended Complaint (D.I. 17). Aerin/Foundry asserted 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 IPR2024-00282), seeking damages and a permanent injunction. A notable fact in the amended pleading: Neurent used Aerin's RhinAer as the predicate device in its own FDA 510(k) submission for NEUROMARK.
• 2023–2024 — Answer and counterclaims. Neurent moved for partial dismissal of the amended complaint (D.I. 19, 20); that motion was denied (D.I. 74). Neurent then answered and asserted state-law counterclaims for tortious interference and unfair competition (D.I. 40). Aerin/Foundry answered the counterclaims (D.I. 60) and moved to dismiss them (D.I. 58, 59); that motion was denied as moot (D.I. 82) after Neurent filed First Amended Counterclaims (D.I. 81), adding a patent-infringement counterclaim against Aerin for U.S. Patent No. 11,998,262 (the '262 patent) based on Aerin's RhinAer® Stylus and Console. Aerin/Foundry then moved to dismiss the tortious-interference and unfair-competition counterclaims and to dismiss the '262 infringement counterclaim on an on-sale bar theory (Aerin argued RhinAer was sold before the '262 patent's April 2020 priority date — "that which infringes if later, anticipates if earlier") (opening brief D.I. 90; redacted public version D.I. 94, filed 2023-08-12; answer to amended counterclaims D.I. 91/95). Disposition of that motion is not confirmed in the available record.

2. Protective-order dispute with IPR implications (2024)

• 2024-05-08 — D.I. 66 (Magistrate Judge Fallon). The court entered a protective order in the Delaware case addressing whether Aerin's litigation counsel who received Neurent confidential information could participate in motions to amend claims in the co-pending IPRs. The court adopted a "balanced approach" used elsewhere in Delaware: litigation counsel with access to confidential information may participate in IPRs except for motion-to-amend activity, reasoning that even narrow amendment work could let patent owners use confidential information to craft claims avoiding prior art while still covering the accused product. This became a recurring ethics/prosecution-bar flashpoint in parallel district-court-plus-IPR campaigns. (D.I. 66; see Lexology practice commentary.)

3. Stay pending IPR (2024)

• 2024-08-08 — Stay entered (D.I. 92/93). On the parties' stipulation, Judge Jennifer L. Hall (the case had been reassigned to her) stayed the entire Delaware case until the PTAB issued final written decisions in IPR2024-00275, -00276, -00277, -00278, -00279, -00280, -00669, and -00282 — the coordinated Neurent-filed IPR wave challenging essentially all eight asserted Aerin/Foundry patents. All existing case deadlines (including claim-construction briefing deadlines) were vacated (D.I. 93, entered 2023-08-08). This made the PTAB the de facto first forum on validity.

4. The parallel PTAB IPR on the '286 patent — IPR2024-00282

• 2024-01-18 — Petition filed. Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd. petitioned for inter partes review of claims 1–4 and 7–9 of U.S. Patent No. 11,766,286 (the '286 patent, "Methods and Devices to Treat Nasal Airways," issued 2023-09-26, priority to 2011). Petitioners: WilmerHale (David Cavanaugh, Alexis Cohen, Alexander Nemtzow, Joshua Stern). Patent owner: Aerin (Finnegan in the related litigations; Greenberg Traurig's Ben Gilford, Heath Briggs, Trenton Ward at the PTAB after counsel substitution ordered 2024-09-25). The petition relied on Edwards-'535 (U.S. 6,517,535), Stern (U.S. 5,562,720), Edwards-'886 (U.S. 6,273,886), and Makower, with expert declarations from Dr. Gregory Martin (engineer) and, in related IPRs, Dr. DelGaudio (clinician).
• 2024-07-22 — Institution granted (Paper 9). The Board (APJs Michael A. Valek, Michael J. Fitzpatrick, Zhenyu Yang) instituted review on obviousness grounds: claims 1–3 and 7–9 over Edwards-'535 + Stern; claim 8 also over Edwards-'535 + Stern + Edwards-'886 (alternative ground: Makower + Stern + Edwards-'535).
• 2024-10-25 — Patent Owner Response (Paper 21). Aerin opposed, with expert testimony from Dr. Marom Bikson (Ex. 2001–2002); Aerin later deposed Dr. Martin (Jan. 2025) and Neurent deposed Dr. Bikson (Dec. 2024).
• 2025-01-17 — Petitioner's Reply (Paper 24). Neurent filed its reply with a Martin reply declaration, the Bikson deposition transcript, and supporting exhibits; Aerin filed objections to evidence and a sur-reply (2025-03-04, Paper 29).
• 2025-04-23 — Consolidated oral argument. The Board heard IPR2024-00277, -00278, and -00282 together (90 minutes per side; hearing transcript filed 2025-06-02, Paper 36). The central disputed issues included claim construction of "multiple pairs of bipolar radiofrequency electrodes," whether Stern's electrode arrangements taught "two rows of bipolar electrode pairs," and the motivation to combine Edwards-'535 with Stern.
• 2025-07-11 — Final Written Decision (Paper 38). Judge Valek authored the decision for the panel: all challenged claims (1–4, 7–9) of the '286 patent were found unpatentable as obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a), by a preponderance of the evidence, primarily over Edwards-'535 in view of Stern. The Board rejected Aerin's challenges to Neurent's expert qualifications and its alternative constructions. The same day, the Board issued parallel FWDs invalidating challenged claims of the related '271 (IPR2024-00277) and '318 (IPR2024-00278) patents — Law360's coverage: "PTAB Knocks Out Claims In 3 Nasal Airway Patents" (2025-07-15). (IPR2024-00281 was terminated and refiled as IPR2024-00669, also among the FWDs.)

5. Consolidation of Neurent's counter-suit (2024–2025)

• 2024-09-24 — Neurent's separate action. Neurent Medical Ltd. sued Aerin in Delaware (1:24-cv-01070-JLH) asserting Neurent's '262, '973, '974, and '889 patents against the RhinAer system. Aerin moved to dismiss on 2024-11-15 (D.I. 19, briefing extended to Dec. 2024).
• 2025-03-18 — Consolidation (D.I. 106, 107). The two Delaware actions were consolidated into 1:23-cv-00756-JLH, and the court entered an interim scheduling order (D.I. 107) governing the Neurent-patent claims through initial infringement and invalidity contentions, with a status conference set for 2025-08-08 — i.e., roughly a month after the PTAB's FWDs.

6. Present posture: appeal (2025–present)

• 2025-09-11 — Notice of Appeal (Paper 39 in the IPR; filed with the PTAB). Aerin appealed the '286 FWD under 35 U.S.C. §§ 141(c), 319.
• 2025-09-12 — Federal Circuit appeal docketed as No. 25-2101 (Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al.).
• 2025-09-23 — Consolidation order (Fed. Cir.). The Federal Circuit consolidated 25-2099 (lead), 25-2100, and 25-2101 — the appeals from the three companion IPRs (the '271, '318, and '286 patents) — directing all filings in the lead appeal.
• 2025-10-22/23 — Certified list received. The PTAB record was transmitted; briefing deadlines under Fed. Cir. R. 31 run from that date. No merits decision yet; the appeal is pending. (Most recent publicly retrievable docket update: 2025-10-23.)

7. Counter-IPRs and the broader war

• Aerin has countersued at the PTAB against Neurent's own patents: IPR2025-01124 through -01127, including IPR2025-01125 challenging Neurent's '889 patent (Ex. 1023 to that petition, cited above, is Aerin's Delaware motion-to-dismiss brief — a vivid illustration of how the district-court record is being weaponized in the PTAB proceedings). Those petitions were filed before the first FWDs issued and, per the record, were pending as of early 2025.
• Neurent's infringement counterclaim on the '262 patent (D.I. 81) is intertwined with Aerin's on-sale-bar motion to dismiss; the '262 patent is also subject to Aerin's IPR2025-01124. No final disposition of the counterclaims or the on-sale-bar motion is confirmed in the available record.

8. Claim construction, discovery, trial — status

• Claim construction (Markman): No Markman order issued. Claim-construction briefing deadlines were set early (the CourtListener docket reflects "Set/Reset Claim Construction Briefing") but were vacated by the 2024-08-08 stay (D.I. 93). The controlling constructions to date are therefore those adopted by the PTAB in the FWD, which rejected Aerin's proposed constructions of the electrode-arrangement terms.
• Discovery: Substantial merits discovery occurred in the IPRs (expert reports, two expert depositions — Dr. Martin and Dr. Bikson — plus document discovery), but fact discovery in the Delaware case was cut short by the stay entered within ~13 months of filing. The protective-order ruling (D.I. 66) shaped discovery practice.
• Trial / verdict / post-trial motions: None. No trial date has been set; the district court's August 2025 status conference (per D.I. 107) came after the PTAB invalidations, but the available record does not confirm whether the stay has been lifted, whether the parties have stipulated to dismissal, or what occurred at that conference. The case is formally open/stayed at the district court with the validity question now pending at the Federal Circuit.

---

Bottom line

The merits of the infringement suit have effectively been decided for now by the PTAB, not the district court: IPR2024-00282 ended on 2025-07-11 with all challenged claims of the '286 patent found unpatentable, part of a sweep of FWDs invalidating challenged claims across the three related Aerin patents. Aerin appealed, and the consolidated Federal Circuit appeals (25-2099/25-2100/25-2101) are pending; the Delaware case remains stayed in the interim. There has been no settlement, no damages award, no injunction, and no final judgment — and if the Federal Circuit affirms, Aerin's infringement claims on the invalidated patents will be dead, leaving only Neurent's counterclaims (the '262 patent and related tort claims) and Aerin's counter-IPRs against Neurent's patents as the live fronts.

Verification caveats: (1) Disposition of Aerin's motion to dismiss Neurent's first amended counterclaims (D.I. 90/94) is not confirmed from the retrieved sources. (2) What happened at the district court's 2025-08-08 status conference — and whether the stay was lifted or the case dismissed — is not yet reflected in the docket pages I could access; treat the district-court posture as "stayed/open" subject to docket confirmation. (3) Dates for the IPR filings, institution, FWD, and appeal are corroborated by PTAB aggregators (GreyB/ipverse, Patexia, Docket Alarm, UniCourt) and the Federal Circuit docket.

Counsel of Record for the "Plaintiff" Side (Neurent Medical Inc. & Neurent Medical Ltd.)

A threshold clarification on party alignment. This docket (IPR2024-00282) is an inter partes review before the PTAB, not a standalone infringement suit. The metadata's "plaintiffs" — Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd. — are the petitioners in the IPR (the party challenging the '286 patent). In the parallel district court infringement action (Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC v. Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., No. 1:23-cv-00756-JLH, D. Del.), the alignment is reversed: Aerin and The Foundry are the plaintiffs and Neurent is the defendant. The roster below is Neurent's counsel of record at the PTAB; I flag the district-court alignment at the end.

Lead counsel

David L. Cavanaugh — Lead counsel for Petitioners

• Firm/office: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, 2100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC 20037 (WilmerHale partner; Vice Chair, Intellectual Property Department; Chair, Post-Grant Proceedings Group).
• Role: Lead counsel (USPTO Reg. No. 36,476). He signed the petition-side filings (e.g., the Lantier pro hac vice motion) as counsel for Petitioners and argued the consolidated oral hearing on April 23, 2025, on behalf of Neurent (hearing transcript for IPR2024-00277/278/282).
• Experience: One of the most active IPR attorneys nationally (Patexia-ranked); counsel of record on roughly 400 IPR proceedings, with dozens of PTAB oral arguments as lead counsel. Former senior patent counsel at Boston Scientific and former USPTO patent examiner; teaches patent litigation and post-grant proceedings at American University Washington College of Law.

Pro hac vice

Gregory H. Lantier — Pro hac vice counsel for Petitioners

• Firm/office: WilmerHale partner, Washington, DC (also admitted in DC, VA, WY, NY).
• Role: Admitted pro hac vice in IPR2024-00282 (Petitioners' Motion for PHV Admission with Lantier Decl., Ex. 1081). He was also admitted pro hac vice in the related Delaware case (D.I. 11, Aerin v. Neurent, 1:23-cv-00756, granted Aug. 23, 2023).
• Experience: 20+ years as a patent litigator; previously admitted PHV in numerous IPRs (e.g., PNC Bank v. USAA, IPR2022-00075/76; Medtronic Vascular v. TMT Systems, IPR2021-01532; Intel v. VLSI Tech, IPR2021-01192), and he represented Neurent in the related district court litigation, giving him direct familiarity with the '286 patent's subject matter.

Back-up counsel (WilmerHale, Washington, DC)

• Alexis R. Cohen — Back-up counsel. Appeared for Petitioner at the April 23, 2025 oral hearing; also admitted PHV in the related Delaware case (D.I. 11 in 1:23-cv-00756). WilmerHale, 2100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW, Washington, DC.
• Alexander (Alex) Nemtzow — Back-up counsel. Appeared for Petitioner at the April 23, 2025 oral hearing; listed on PTAB service lists (alex.nemtzow@wilmerhale.com).
• Joshua L. Stern — Back-up counsel. Appeared for Petitioner at the April 23, 2025 oral hearing; listed on service lists (joshua.stern@wilmerhale.com); admitted PHV in the related Delaware case (D.I. 11).
• Sarah Murphy — Listed on the PTAB certificate-of-service email roster for Petitioner's counsel (sarah.j.murphy@wilmerhale.com), indicating a WilmerHale back-up counsel or associate role. Her precise title/role could not be independently confirmed from the available sources.

Completeness note: Patexia's case summary reports 11 petitioner-side attorneys of record for IPR2024-00282, so there are additional WilmerHale associates/junior attorneys on the docket whose names were not individually confirmed in the sources retrieved. No filings in this IPR are sealed; all of the above counsel have appeared on the public docket.

District-court alignment (for cross-reference, not the IPR)

• Aerin/The Foundry (plaintiffs in 1:23-cv-00756-JLH): represented by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner — J. Michael Jakes, Kathleen A. Daley, and Sonja W. Sahlsten (pro hac vice, granted Aug. 2023) — with Delaware counsel Daniel M. Silver and Alexandra M. Joyce (per the CourtListener party docket; firm affiliation for Silver/Joyce is McCarter & English in the Delaware bar, though that specific affiliation wasn't confirmed in my sources).
• Neurent (defendant in the Delaware action): represented by the same WilmerHale team (Cavanaugh, Lantier, Cohen, Stern) with Brian P. Egan as the Delaware counsel who filed the PHV motion (D.I. 11); Egan's firm affiliation was not confirmed from the retrieved snippets.

Source basis: PTAB documents via PTACTS/USPTO (pro hac vice motion and Lantier declaration; hearing transcript for IPR2024-00277/278/282, April 23, 2025), Docket Alarm/GreyB ipverse/UniCourt/Patexia case summaries for IPR2024-00282, the WilmerHale attorney bio for David Cavanaugh, and the D. Del. docket (D.I. 11; CourtListener/Justia party records for 1:23-cv-00756).

Counsel of Record — Aerin Medical Inc. (Patent Owner/Respondent; the "Defendant" per the case metadata)

Framing note. This matter is an inter partes review (IPR2024-00282), not an infringement suit. Under the case metadata's party convention ("Defendant(s): Aerin Medical Inc."), Aerin is the Patent Owner/Respondent whose patents were challenged. Its counsel of record is therefore the patent-owner team. One important nuance from the record: Aerin has dual-firm representation — Greenberg Traurig (which took over lead/argument duties after the institution decision) and Finnegan Henderson (which remains on the notices and is publicly identified by the firm as patent-owner counsel in this IPR). The Board's consolidated oral-hearing transcript (Apr. 23, 2025, for IPR2024-00277/-00278/-00282) confirms the Greenberg Traurig attorneys appeared "on behalf of the Patent Owner," while Finnegan's Aug. 28, 2024 Updated Mandatory Notices (filed in the parallel IPR2024-00277; the same notice/power-of-attorney pair appears on the IPR2024-00282 docket) state Aerin was "adding additional counsel and identifying new lead counsel," with Finnegan's Sonja Sahlsten designated back-up counsel and a power of attorney to Greenberg Traurig filed concurrently.

Greenberg Traurig, LLP (lead/arguing counsel)

• Benjamin P. Gilford — Lead/arguing counsel for Aerin at the April 23, 2025 consolidated hearing ("Ben Gilford, on behalf of the Patent Owner, Aerin Medical"). Partner, Greenberg Traurig, Minneapolis, MN (Reg. No. 72,072). IPR-focused patent litigator; he carried the substantive argument on the Stern "bipolar pairs"/"output channels" issues that decided the case.
• Heath J. Briggs — Co-counsel at the hearing and the GT attorney who signed the Patent Owner's demonstrative certificate of service (Apr. 18, 2025). Partner, Greenberg Traurig, Denver, CO (Reg. No. 54,919); designated lead counsel for Aerin in the related GT filings for the Aerin-filed counter-IPRs (e.g., IPR2025-01124 series), and the GT service contact on the "AerinMed-IPRs@gtlaw.com" service address.
• Trenton Ward — Co-counsel at the April 23, 2025 hearing. Partner, Greenberg Traurig, Atlanta, GA (Reg. No. 59,157).
• Elana Araj (New York, NY; Reg. No. 75,804), Declan Stone-Murphy (Boston, MA; Reg. No. 81,789), and Emma Cohen (New York, NY) — Listed in GT's Aerin-related counsel designations for the coordinated IPR campaign; I could not independently confirm from the accessible record whether each was on the IPR2024-00282 notices specifically (Patexia tallies 13 patent-owner attorneys on this docket, which is consistent with the combined Finnegan/GT roster).

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (Washington, DC office)

• Sonja W. Sahlsten — Designated back-up counsel for Aerin in the Patent Owner's Updated Mandatory Notices (Aug. 28, 2024) and the signatory of that notice (Reg. No. 70,927; Washington, DC). Former law clerk to Chief Judge Sharon Prost (Fed. Cir.); Florida Bar board-certified in IP (2022); adjunct professor (patent litigation) at George Mason Scalia Law (2022–23); experienced in IPRs and ex parte reexaminations. Also pro hac vice for Aerin in the Delaware cases (1:23-cv-00756; 1:24-cv-01070).
• J. Michael Jakes — Finnegan partner on the Aerin matter; pro hac vice for Aerin in both Delaware actions (D.I. 10/11 in 1:23-cv-00756; D.I. 11 in 1:24-cv-01070, Oct. 15, 2024). Senior patent trial lawyer; named on the service lists in the IPR papers.
• Kathleen A. Daley — Finnegan partner; pro hac vice for Aerin in Delaware; on the Sept. 19, 2024 service list for the IPR (WilmerHale's Lantier pro hac vice motion certificate of service).
• Christopher C. Howes — Finnegan partner (Washington, DC); his Finnegan matter page expressly confirms: "Finnegan is also representing patent owners Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC in a series of inter partes review (IPR) challenges to the asserted patents," listing IPR2024-00282 among them. Pro hac vice for Aerin in the Delaware actions.
• Kathleen C. Galleher — Finnegan (mechanical/electrical arts; prosecution and litigation); same Finnegan matter-page confirmation of the Aerin IPR representation; on the IPR service list.
• Anthony J. Berlenbach and Jason Stach — Finnegan attorneys on the IPR2024-00282 service list (Sept. 19, 2024 certificate of service); the firm's experience page confirms the Finnegan IPR engagement across IPR2024-00275/-00276/-00277/-00278/-00279/-00280/-00282/-00669.

In-house

• Irina Ridley — Aerin's Chief Legal Officer; attended the April 23, 2025 hearing as the company representative (identified on the record by Mr. Gilford). Whether she is a designated "counsel of record" on the PTAB notices is not clear from the accessible record.

Petitioner-side context (for completeness, not requested)

Neurent's IPR team is Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP — lead counsel David L. Cavanaugh (Reg. No. 36,476) with Gregory H. Lantier (pro hac vice), Alexis Cohen, Alexander Nemtzow, Josh Stern, Sarah Murphy, and Brian Lambson.

Caveats

• Lead-counsel designation. I verified the Aug. 28, 2024 updated-notices content from the parallel IPR2024-00277 filing (identifying new lead counsel, Sahlsten as back-up, GT power of attorney filed concurrently). The identical filing pair exists on the IPR2024-00282 docket (Papers 12–13), but I could not open the 00282-specific PDF to confirm which GT attorney is formally designated lead; the hearing transcript and demonstrative signature show Gilford/Briggs/Ward functioning as the active GT team.
• Delaware local counsel for Aerin in the underlying infringement cases was not identified in my searches (the dockets show Finnegan pro hac vice entries); I have not named anyone to avoid fabrication.
• Federal Circuit appeal (No. 25-2101) — Aerin's appeal counsel is not yet verifiable from available sources; Finnegan (which handles the firm's Federal Circuit appeals) and/or Greenberg Traurig are the likely candidates, but this is unconfirmed.