Neurent Medical Inc. et al. v. The Foundry, LLC

Case Overview

IPR2024-00281 is not itself a district court infringement case — it is a Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) inter partes review, one of a coordinated wave of validity challenges that Neurent Medical filed against patents asserted in the underlying infringement suit, Aerin Medical Inc. & The Foundry, LLC v. Neurent Medical Inc. & Neurent Medical Ltd., No. 1:23-cv-00756-JLH (D. Del.), filed July 11, 2023 (see Amended Complaint, D.I. 17, Ex. 1035; Joint Status Report, D.I. 104). The petitioners are Neurent Medical Ltd. (Irish parent, Galway) and its Delaware subsidiary Neurent Medical Inc. (Braintree, MA) — a venture-backed operating medtech company commercializing the NEUROMARK® System, a single-use, handheld bipolar radiofrequency (RF) device plus console that delivers impedance-controlled, low-power RF energy to disrupt posterior nasal (parasympathetic) nerves to treat chronic rhinitis (rhinorrhea and nasal congestion); NEUROMARK received FDA 510(k) clearance in 2021 (next-generation version cleared June 2025, with a $74M Series C announced in 2025) (neuromark.com press releases; massdevice.com). The patent owner is The Foundry, LLC — a Menlo Park medical-device incubator (founded by Mark Deem and Hanson Gifford, who are also the named inventors of the patent at issue) that does not itself practice the patents but licenses them to Aerin Medical Inc. (Mountain View), the maker of the RhinAer® and VivAer® styluses, which is the exclusive licensee for nasal-cavity treatments and the co-plaintiff in Delaware (Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices, IPR2024-00280, PTACTS). Aerin/Foundry's amended complaint accuses Neurent's NEUROMARK System of infringing eight patents, including U.S. Patent No. 11,679,077 ("Systems and methods for delivery of a therapeutic agent," app. 17/151,938, Tech Center 1600) — the patent at issue here. Technically, the '077 patent claims apparatuses and methods for treating a nasal condition (e.g., rhinitis/rhinorrhea) by delivering a therapeutic agent such as a botulinum-toxin fragment to nasopharyngeal tissue while applying energy (electric field/ultrasound) to reversibly permeabilize ("porate") target cell membranes so as to enhance intracellular delivery and reduce nasal congestion (Ex. 1001; Patent Owner Preliminary Response in IPR2024-00669).

Procedural Posture and Disposition

Neurent filed this IPR on January 18, 2024 (lead petitioner counsel David Cavanaugh, WilmerHale; patent owner lead counsel Kathleen Daley, Finnegan) as one of eight same-day petitions (IPR2024-00275 through -00282) challenging every patent asserted in the Delaware action. On February 28, 2024, Neurent moved to withdraw its '077 petition through dismissal without prejudice; The Foundry opposed (Mar. 13, 2024), and Neurent replied (Mar. 15, 2024)** (Docket entries 7–9, Unicourt/DocketAlarm). On April 24, 2024, the Board — panel of Administrative Patent Judges Sheridan Snedden, Susan Mitchell, and Timothy Majors — granted the opposed motion and dismissed the proceeding prior to institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314 and 37 C.F.R. § 42.71(a), later refunding the filing fee (DocketAlarm docket for IPR2024-00281; IP Verse case page). "Venue" here is the USPTO's PTAB (Madison Building, Alexandria, VA) — an administrative tribunal, not an Article III court — so the case's significance lies in its linkage to the parallel infringement suit in the District of Delaware (a leading U.S. patent venue), which is now before Judge Jennifer L. Hall (the amended-complaint caption originally read 23-756 (GBW) before reassignment to Judge Hall, and her docket shows consolidation with Neurent's later action No. 24-1070-JLH; Finnegan case page; D.I. 104). In August 2024, Judge Hall stayed the entire Delaware action pending the IPRs, and Aerin later statutorily disclaimed the '597 and '194 patents (Oct. 2024) (D.I. 104). Critically, the withdrawal did not end the validity fight: on April 3, 2024 — before the withdrawal decision — Neurent re-filed the '077 challenge as IPR2024-00669; the Board instituted (July 23, 2024) and on July 21, 2025 issued a Final Written Decision holding all challenged claims of the '077 patent unpatentable as obvious and dismissing Foundry's motion to exclude, a decision IP Verse lists as appealed (DocketAlarm; Bloomberg Law, July 22, 2025). The public docket does not disclose Neurent's stated reason for withdrawing the first petition, though the immediate re-filing suggests a strategic reset of its grounds.

Why the Case Is Notable

This dispute sits at the center of an emerging, commercially hot market: posterior nasal nerve (PNN) ablation for chronic rhinitis, a condition affecting roughly one in four Americans, with Aerin's RhinAer and Neurent's NEUROMARK competing head-to-head and a Category I CPT code (31242) instated in 2024 signaling reimbursement maturity. It is not a classic NPE case — both sides are operating companies — but it illustrates a common assertion structure in which a renowned medtech incubator (The Foundry, of Deem/Gifford) monetizes patents through an exclusive licensee (Aerin) while the accused competitor counters with a full-court IPR barrage that forced a complete stay of the Delaware litigation. The '077 proceeding is procedurally notable because the Board granted withdrawal without prejudice over the patent owner's express opposition — a maneuver that allowed Neurent to re-file (IPR2024-00669) and ultimately win a Final Written Decision invalidating all challenged claims, which, if upheld on appeal, would remove a core patent from Foundry/Aerin's portfolio (the related '675 and '011 patents in the same family were also challenged in IPR2024-00279/-00280, with Final Written Decisions issued the same week in July 2025). Sourcing caveats: the strategic reason for Neurent's withdrawal is not explained in the public docket materials I located; the reason for the D. Del. reassignment from Judge Williams to Judge Hall is likewise not documented in my sources; and I do not have the Federal Circuit appeal docket number for the IPR2024-00669 Final Written Decision, which IP Verse reports as appealed.

Key Legal Developments and Outcome — Neurent Medical v. The Foundry (IPR2024-00281) and the Related D. Del. Infringement Litigation

Threshold clarification

The docket in the case metadata — IPR2024-00281 — is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district court infringement suit. It was one of a coordinated wave of eight IPRs that Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd. ("Neurent") filed on 2024-01-18 against the Aerin Medical Inc. / The Foundry, LLC ("Foundry") patent family asserted against Neurent's NEUROMARK® rhinitis-treatment system in the underlying infringement case:

Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC v. Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., No. 1:23-cv-00756-JLH (D. Del.) (filed 2023-07-11; consolidated with No. 24-1070-JLH).

The '077 patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,679,077) was one of eight patents asserted in that D. Del. case (the others: '597, '194, '675, '011, '318, '271, '286). The chronology below covers (A) the district court litigation, (B) the specific IPR2024-00281 docket, and (C) the parallel IPRs — including the refiled '077 IPR (IPR2024-00669) that functionally replaced IPR2024-00281.

---

A. Underlying infringement litigation (D. Del., 1:23-cv-00756-JLH)

Filing & initial pleadings

• 2023-07-11 — Aerin and Foundry filed the Complaint (D.I. 1) against Neurent, asserting infringement based on Neurent's release of the NEUROMARK® System for treating rhinitis with RF energy. (Justia docket; Am. Compl. at D. Del. No. 23-756; the operative Amended Complaint is Ex. 1035 in the PTAB record.)
• Amended Complaint (D.I. 17) — asserted all eight patents, including the '077 patent; sought damages and a permanent injunction; demanded a jury trial. (DocketAlarm copy of Ex. 1035.)
• Neurent's answer and counterclaims (D.I. 40, ¶¶ 42–63) — answered and asserted state-law counterclaims for tortious interference and unfair competition based on Aerin/Foundry's pre-suit enforcement conduct. (Joint Status Report, D.I. 105, quoting D.I. 40; Aerin's opening brief, D.I. 94.)

Pre-trial motions of substance

• Motion to dismiss (D.I. 19/20) — Neurent moved for partial dismissal of the indirect/willful infringement allegations.
  • 2024-06-05 — DENIED (D.I. 74, Oral Order, Judge Jennifer L. Hall). The court held that each count adequately pled direct infringement, and that allegations of competitor status, pre-suit notice, Neurent's citation of the patents in its own PTO proceedings, FDA-filing references to the marked Aerin product, plus the attached claim charts, plausibly supported indirect and willful infringement. (D.I. 74, quoted in PTAB record.)
• Motion to dismiss Neurent's original counterclaims (D.I. 58/59) — Aerin/Foundry moved to dismiss the tortious interference/unfair competition counterclaims.
  • Denied as moot (D.I. 82) after Neurent filed First Amended Counterclaims (D.I. 81) on 2024-07-08.
• First Amended Counterclaims (D.I. 81, 2024-07-08) — added a patent infringement counterclaim against Aerin for the RhinAer® Stylus under Neurent's '262 patent (U.S. Patent No. 11,998,262), plus the tortious interference/unfair competition claims (pled on information and belief).
• Motion to dismiss amended counterclaims (D.I. 89; opening brief D.I. 94 filed 2024-08-12) — Aerin/Foundry argued: (1) the '262 counterclaim is defeated by the on-sale bar (the accused RhinAer® Console and First-Generation Stylus were sold by October 2019/February 2020, before the '262 patent's April 2020 priority date — "that which infringes if later, anticipates if earlier"); (2) the tortious interference/unfair competition claims are conclusory, lump Aerin and Foundry together, and lack causation; and (3) the state-law claims are preempted and barred by Noerr-Pennington. Status of D.I. 89 as of the last available filings: pending. (D.I. 94, filed 2024-08-12; referenced as pending in the Joint Status Report.)

Stay pending IPR (the pivotal event)

• 2024-07-22/23 — The PTAB instituted IPRs on all eight asserted Aerin/Foundry patents (including the refiled '077 IPR, IPR2024-00669, instituted 2024-07-23). (D.I. 93; IPR decision lists.)
• 2024-08-08 — District court entered the parties' stipulated stay of the entire action (D.I. 93) — covering Aerin/Foundry's infringement claims, Neurent's defenses, and Neurent's amended counterclaims — until Final Written Decisions issue in the IPRs on the Aerin/Foundry patents. (Joint Status Report, D.I. 105.)

Consolidation and secondary litigation

• 2024-09-24 — Neurent filed a separate infringement action, Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc., No. 24-1070-JLH (D. Del.), asserting Neurent's '973, '974, and '889 patents (plus the '262 patent) against Aerin's RhinAer®. (D.I. 106; Joint Status Report.)
• 2024-10-24 — Aerin statutorily disclaimed all asserted claims of the '597 and '194 patents (mooting the corresponding IPRs). (Joint Status Report, D.I. 105.)
• 2025-03-18 — Court entered the Stipulation and Order to Consolidate (D.I. 106), consolidating No. 24-1070 into No. 23-756, and an Order Regarding Interim Scheduling Concerning the Neurent Patents-in-Suit (D.I. 107). (Joint Status Report.)
• 2025 (Feb–Apr) — After the Court's 2025-02-28 Oral Order (D.I. 104), the parties submitted a Joint Status Report (D.I. 105) with a stipulated schedule for further proceedings. Aerin's motion to dismiss Neurent's consolidated claims (No. 24-1070, D.I. 19) remained pending.

Claim construction, discovery, trial

• No Markman/claim construction has occurred in the D. Del. case — the case was stayed in August 2024 before any claim-construction proceedings. (Claim construction in the IPRs proceeded under the Board's claim-construction standard.)
• Pre-stay discovery milestones of note:
  • 2024-06-14 — Neurent served Initial Invalidity Contentions (D.I. 77) and issued third-party subpoenas to Boston Scientific, Olympus, and Smith & Nephew (D.I. 76) — consistent with a pre-AIA on-sale/public-use and prior-art strategy.
  • Counterclaim discovery (including the on-sale-bar record for the RhinAer®) was developed through the D.I. 89 motion papers (invoices, 510(k) submissions, press releases).
• No trial, verdict, JMOL, or fee motion — none occurred; the case has been stayed or in interim scheduling throughout.

Current posture

As of the most recent confirmed record (the parties' 2025 status report, D.I. 105), the consolidated D. Del. case remains stayed as to the Aerin/Foundry patents pending the IPR Final Written Decisions, with interim proceedings on Neurent's counterclaimed/consolidated patents (the '262, '973, '974, '889 patents) proceeding under an interim schedule. No settlement or final judgment has been reported. (I could not confirm post-March-2025 docket events from public searches; the stay-lifting and any trial date after the July 2025 FWDs should be verified on PACER/DocketAlarm.)

---

B. IPR2024-00281 — the '077 patent IPR in the case metadata (Terminated pre-institution)

• 2024-01-18 — Neurent filed the Petition (Paper 3) challenging claims 1–8 and 11 of the '077 patent (issued 2023-06-20) on multiple grounds (anticipation/obviousness over Makower (US 2005/0240147), Fang, Edwards (US 6,517,535), Stern (US 5,562,720), etc., with expert declaration of Gregory Martin). (PTAB docket; Petition papers.)
• 2024-01-24 — Notice of filing date accorded; Patent Owner Preliminary Response deadline set (Paper 4).
• 2024-02-08 — Foundry filed Power of Attorney (Paper 5) and Mandatory Notices (Paper 6).
• 2024-02-28 — Neurent filed its Opposed Motion to Withdraw Petition Through Dismissal Without Prejudice (Paper 7). The strategic predicate: 35 U.S.C. § 311(c) bars IPR petitions filed within 9 months of patent grant; the '077 patent issued 2023-06-20, and Neurent's petition asserted grounds premised on both a pre-AIA and a post-AIA priority date, creating eligibility uncertainty. Neurent asked to withdraw and refile after the 9-month bar expired (2024-03-21), citing SharkNinja, IPR2023-01323, and Cirba IP as support. (Petition/withdrawal papers; Feb. 23, 2024 email to the Board.)
• Foundry opposed (Paper 8, 2024-03-13) — not on the merits, but because Neurent refused Foundry's demand that the POPR deadlines in related IPRs 2024-00279 and -00280 be aligned (extended) with the refiled proceeding. Neurent characterized this as an unjustified, unrelated scheduling concession.
• 2024-03-15 — Neurent's Reply in support of withdrawal (Paper 9), arguing the opposition had no basis in rule or precedent.
• 2024-04-24 — Board Decision (Paper 10): GRANTED the opposed motion to withdraw; dismissed the proceeding prior to institution under 35 U.S.C. § 314; proceeding terminated. (Panel: Judges Sheridan Snedden, Susan Mitchell, Timothy Majors.) Termination date: 2024-04-24.
• 2024-05-09 — Neurent requested refund of the $22,500 post-institution fee (Paper 11).
• 2024-06-10 — Board notice: refund approved (Paper 12).

Outcome of IPR2024-00281: terminated pre-institution via voluntary withdrawal, without prejudice, and with the post-institution fee refunded — an administrative, non-merits disposition driven entirely by the § 311(c) 9-month timing issue.

---

C. Parallel PTAB proceedings and their effect on the litigation

The refiled '077 IPR (the substantive successor)

• IPR2024-00669 — filed 2024-04-03 (immediately after the 9-month bar expired), same claims 1–8 and 11 of the '077 patent, same four grounds (Makower + Fang; + Edwards; + Stern; priority-date challenges).
  • Instituted 2024-07-23.
  • Expert discovery occurred in parallel with the related Foundry IPRs (e.g., deposition of Dr. Nicolas Bu-Saba on 2024-10-17, and of Dr. Gregory Martin in Sept–Oct 2024).
  • 2025-07-21 — Final Written Decision (Paper 43): all challenged claims of the '077 patent determined unpatentable; Patent Owner's motion to exclude dismissed. (DocketAlarm: "JUDGMENT Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) ... Dismissing Patent Owner's Motion to Exclude.")
  • Status: appealed by Patent Owner (Foundry) — the FWD is marked "Final Written Decision – Appealed." (ipverse/DocketAlarm; Federal Circuit docket numbers not confirmed in public searches.)

The other Neurent-filed IPRs on the asserted Aerin/Foundry patents

• IPR2024-00275 ('597) and IPR2024-00276 ('194) — Terminated – Adverse Judgment, consistent with Aerin's 2024-10-24 statutory disclaimer of all asserted claims of those patents.
• IPR2024-00277 ('271), IPR2024-00278 ('318), IPR2024-00282 ('286) — instituted 2024-07-22; Final Written Decisions 2025-07-11 finding all challenged claims unpatentable; Patent Owner's Notices of Appeal filed 2025-09-11 (per DocketAlarm for IPR2024-00278/-00282). A Law360 article (2025-07-15, "PTAB Knocks Out Claims In 3 Nasal Airway Patents") reported the Board invalidating a host of claims across a trio of Aerin's nasal-airway patents.
• IPR2024-00279 ('675) and IPR2024-00280 ('011) — instituted July 2024; Final Written Decisions issued (IPR2024-00279 status: "Final Written Decision" per ipverse; the Bu-Saba deposition transcript covers these matters).

Aerin/Foundry's counter-IPRs against Neurent's patents

• IPR2025-01124, -01125, -01126, -01127 (filed June 19–27, 2025) — Aerin challenged Neurent's patents (including the '262 patent asserted in the D. Del. counterclaims); all four were denied (discretionary denial) per ipverse status tracking. (Aerin's IPR2025-01125 petition exhibits include the D. Del. D.I. 94 brief, showing the overlap of the two fronts.)

Effect on the infringement litigation

• The 2024-08-08 stay (D.I. 93) froze the D. Del. case pending these FWDs — the single most consequential litigation event.
• The July 2025 FWDs invalidating the asserted claims of the '077, '271, '318, '286, '675, and '011 patents, plus the disclaimer of the '597/'194 patents, have effectively dismantled the infringement claims that triggered the suit; the scope of any remand/lift of stay will turn on the pending Federal Circuit appeals (Foundry/Aerin appealed the '077, '271, '318, and '286 FWDs in September 2025).
• The live district-court front is now Neurent's counterclaims and consolidated Neurent-patent assertions (the '262, '973, '974, '889 patents) against Aerin's RhinAer®, which were on an interim schedule as of the March 2025 orders — and those Neurent patents were the subject of Aerin's (discretionarily denied) 2025 IPRs.

---

Bottom line

• IPR2024-00281 itself produced no merits decision: Neurent voluntarily withdrew pre-institution (granted 2024-04-24) for a § 311(c) timing fix, and the post-institution fee was refunded (2024-06-10).
• The '077 patent was then invalidated in the successor IPR2024-00669 (FWD 2025-07-21, all challenged claims unpatentable), which is on appeal to the Federal Circuit along with three sibling FWDs.
• The D. Del. infringement case (1:23-cv-00756-JLH) remains stayed in part and active as to Neurent's counterclaims, with no claim construction, trial, or final judgment to date; its trajectory will be set by the Federal Circuit appeals and the pending motion to dismiss Neurent's amended counterclaims (D.I. 89).

Sources: PTAB dockets and papers for IPR2024-00281 (Papers 3–12; Board decision 2024-04-24) and IPR2024-00669 (Paper 43 FWD); DocketAlarm docket sheets for IPR2024-00281, -00278, -00282, -00669; ipverse.greyb.com case trackers (status and dates); D. Del. docket entries quoted in the parties' filings (D.I. 74, 81, 89, 93, 94, 104–107) reproduced in PTAB records (Finnegan counsel documents; Aerin IPR2025-01125 exhibits); Unicourt; Law360 (2025-07-15). Caveats: I could not confirm post-March-2025 district-court docket events (e.g., ruling on D.I. 89, stay-lift, trial schedule), the Federal Circuit appeal docket numbers, or the disposition of the FWD appeals from public sources within the search limits; those items should be verified on PACER and the CAFC docket.

Threshold clarification

Before the attorney list, one important framing point: IPR2024-00281 is a PTAB inter partes review, not a district court patent infringement case. The parties labeled "Plaintiff(s)" in the case metadata (Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd.) are the petitioners in the IPR; The Foundry, LLC is the patent owner/respondent. The actual infringement suit in which these same patents were asserted is Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC v. Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., No. 1:23-cv-00756-JLH (D. Del.) — and in that case Aerin/Foundry are the plaintiffs and Neurent are the defendants (per the Foundry's own mandatory notices filed in the related IPR2024-00280, citing the D. Del. action). The list below covers the counsel of record for Neurent (the petitioner/"plaintiff-side" party) in IPR2024-00281, which is the case in your metadata.

Counsel of record for Neurent Medical Inc. / Neurent Medical Ltd. — IPR2024-00281

All are from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale). This team is confirmed by (i) Finnegan's February 8, 2024 service certificate in the related IPR2024-00280 identifying "counsel of record for Petitioner," and (ii) the February 23, 2024 correspondence in IPR2024-00281 signed by Cavanaugh as "Counsel for Petitioner." The same team represented Neurent in the companion IPRs (2024-00279, -00280) and in the refiled proceeding on the same '077 patent, IPR2024-00669, which was instituted and ended in a Final Written Decision (July 21, 2025).

Additional note on the underlying D. Del. infringement case

If your "plaintiff(s)" reference is to the district court litigation (where the '077 patent is asserted), note that the plaintiffs there are Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC (not Neurent), represented by Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner LLP — with Kathleen A. Daley as lead PTAB counsel for the patent owners (Reg. No. 36,116; Finnegan) in the parallel IPRs. Neurent, as the defendant in that Delaware case, appears through Delaware local counsel Brian Egan (Shaw Keller LLP, Wilmington, DE) based on the D. Del. docket entries (e.g., D.I. 72, 76, 79 filed by "Egan, Brian"), alongside the WilmerHale team above. I did not locate a separate, publicly retrievable list of Neurent's lead district-court counsel in the D. Del. docket within this search.

Caveats

• The petitioner's own mandatory notices in IPR2024-00281 (docket Paper 2, "Other," filed 1/18/2024) were not directly retrieved in full, so the formal lead/back-up designations are inferred from the service certificates, the signed correspondence, and the identical team in the sister IPRs — all consistent and well-sourced.
• The IPR was terminated pre-institution on April 24, 2024 (petition withdrawn without prejudice; the Board granted the opposed motion to withdraw); Neurent then refiled as IPR2024-00669 on April 3, 2024, which the Board instituted and resolved in a Final Written Decision (July 21, 2025).
• No in-house counsel for Neurent appeared on the PTAB service lists I retrieved; if Neurent in-house counsel exist on the filings, they were not listed as counsel of record in the public documents located.

Threshold clarification

The case in the metadata — IPR2024-00281 (PTAB) — is an inter partes review, not a district court patent infringement action. There is no "defendant" in the Rule 12 sense; the adverse party is the Patent Owner / Respondent, The Foundry, LLC. For completeness, the related infringement case (Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00756-JLH, D. Del.) has The Foundry as a plaintiff, not defendant, so the counsel below are the PTAB counsel of record for The Foundry as patent owner in IPR2024-00281.

Counsel of record — The Foundry, LLC (Patent Owner) in IPR2024-00281

Lead Counsel

• Kathleen A. Daley — Lead Counsel for Patent Owner (Reg. No. 36,116)
  • Firm: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP (Washington, DC; 901 New York Ave., NW)
  • Source: Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices under 37 C.F.R. § 42.8, filed Feb. 8, 2024, signed by Daley as "Lead Counsel for Patent Owner The Foundry, LLC"; PTACTS filing for the related IPR2024-00280 confirms the same designation and Finnegan power of attorney (Customer No. 22,852).
  • Note: Finnegan partner focused on PTAB post-grant proceedings; leads the firm's representation of The Foundry/Aerin across the Neurent IPR series (IPR2024-00275–00282, -00669) and the D. Del. litigation.

Back-up counsel (listed on the Board's June 10, 2024 notice in IPR2024-00281 as Patent Owner counsel; consistent with the Feb. 8, 2024 mandatory-notice team):

• Jason Stach — Back-up counsel (Finnegan, Washington, DC). PTAB/IPR practice; registered patent attorney.
• Sonja W. Sahlsten — Back-up counsel (Finnegan, Washington, DC). Patent litigation and IPR experience; also on the D. Del. team (PHV admitted in 1:24-cv-01070).
• Anthony Berlenbach — Back-up counsel (Finnegan, Washington, DC). PTAB litigation associate.
• Christopher C. Howes — Back-up counsel (Finnegan, Washington, DC). PTAB and district court patent litigation (PHV admitted in the D. Del. actions).

Related-counsel note: In the parallel Delaware litigation, The Foundry and Aerin Medical also use McCarter & English (Daniel M. Silver, Alexandra M. Joyce) as Delaware local counsel, and Finnegan's J. Michael Jakes appears as of counsel on filings — but Jakes is not shown on the IPR2024-00281 Board notices, so I have not listed him as IPR counsel of record.

Procedural posture affecting the record

• The petition was filed Jan. 18, 2024; The Foundry filed its Power of Attorney and Mandatory Notices on Feb. 8, 2024 (the only substantive appearances by patent-owner counsel).
• Neurent moved to withdraw (Feb. 28, 2024); The Foundry opposed (Mar. 13, 2024); Neurent replied (Mar. 15, 2024). The Board granted withdrawal and dismissed pre-institution; the case terminated Apr. 24, 2024 (fee refund notice June 10, 2024).
• Because the proceeding never went to institution, there was no oral hearing or final written decision, and no further appearances beyond the mandatory notices and the withdrawal-opposition briefing.

Sources

• Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices, IPR2024-00280/00281 (Feb. 8, 2024), PTACTS (ptacts.uspto.gov).
• Board Notice (fee refund), IPR2024-00281 (June 10, 2024), PTACTS — lists Daley, Stach, Sahlsten, Berlenbach, Howes.
• Docket: Unicourt and Docket Alarm summaries of IPR2024-00281 (filed 1/18/2024; terminated 4/24/2024; Judges Sheridan Snedden, Susan Mitchell, Timothy Majors).
• Finnegan matter page: "Aerin Medical Inc. et al. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al., 1:23-cv-00756, D. Del." and IPR2024-00275–00282, -00669.
• D. Del. dockets (CourtListener/Justia) for the PHV and local-counsel entries in the parallel litigation.

Caveat: The full mandatory-notices PDF for IPR2024-00281 (with the exact back-up counsel table) was not fully viewable in my search results; the five-attorney list above comes from the Board's June 10, 2024 notice and the matching Feb. 8, 2024 notices in the sister IPRs. If you need the precise § 42.8(b)(3) designations verified entry-by-entry, the definitive source is PTACTS (paper 6, Patent Owner's Mandatory Notices, 2/8/2024).