Neurent Medical Ltd v. CLARET EUROPEAN SPECIALTY LENDING COMPANY III, S.A R.L.

This is an active patent infringement litigation case, Neurent Medical Ltd v. CLARET EUROPEAN SPECIALTY LENDING COMPANY III, S.A R.L., filed in the Delaware District Court under case number 1:24-cv-01070.

The plaintiff, Neurent Medical Ltd, is an Irish MedTech operating company that develops minimally invasive devices to treat chronic inflammatory sino-nasal diseases, particularly chronic rhinitis. Their flagship product, NEUROMARK®, uses low-power radiofrequency energy to disrupt overactive posterior nasal nerves for symptom relief. [cite: 3 (previous search), 6 (previous search), 9 (previous search), 10 (previous search)] The defendant, CLARET EUROPEAN SPECIALTY LENDING COMPANY III, S.A R.L., is a Luxembourg-based financial entity and part of Claret Capital Partners. Claret Capital is a growth debt fund manager that provides financing to innovative European small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) in sectors including technology, life sciences, and climate tech. [cite: 7 (previous search)] Claret Capital has previously provided growth capital to Neurent Medical. [cite: 3 (previous search)] The defendant is a lending and investment firm, not an operating company that would typically manufacture or sell medical devices.

The patent at issue is US Patent 12096974. Based on Neurent Medical's primary business, this patent is highly likely to pertain to systems and methods for treating chronic rhinitis, possibly involving radiofrequency ablation of nasal nerves, consistent with their NEUROMARK® technology. Given the defendant's nature as a lending entity, the specific accused product, service, or technology directly offered by CLARET EUROPEAN SPECIALTY LENDING COMPANY III, S.A R.L. that allegedly infringes the patent is not readily apparent from public web searches and suggests the case may not involve typical direct product infringement. Instead, it could be a dispute concerning patent rights within a financing agreement or a declaratory judgment action. The case is proceeding in the Delaware District Court, a common venue for patent litigation due to its experienced judiciary and frequent incorporation of businesses in the state, which became even more significant after the TC Heartland Supreme Court decision. [cite: 1 (previous search)] The assigned judge for this case is not publicly identified through general web search.

The case is notable primarily due to the highly unusual dynamic of a medical device operating company bringing a patent infringement lawsuit against a financial lending and investment firm that had previously backed the plaintiff. This suggests the litigation likely involves complex legal theories related to patent ownership, licensing, or enforcement rights arising from a past or ongoing investment or financing relationship, rather than a straightforward claim of competing product infringement.

Important Note on Defendant Identity:

Based on the provided case metadata, the defendant is listed as CLARET EUROPEAN SPECIALTY LENDING COMPANY III, S.A R.L. However, extensive web searches for case number 1:24-cv-01070 in the Delaware District Court consistently identify Aerin Medical Inc. as the defendant in the patent infringement litigation brought by Neurent Medical Ltd.. While this analysis adheres to the authoritative metadata provided (listing CLARET as the defendant), all legal developments detailed below pertain to the publicly documented case of Neurent Medical Ltd v. Aerin Medical Inc. under the specified case number. No public records were found detailing litigation activities for "CLARET EUROPEAN SPECIALTY LENDING COMPANY III, S.A R.L." as a defendant in this specific case number.

Patents at Issue:
The litigation involves U.S. Patent Nos. 12,096,973, 12,096,974, and 12,098,889.

---

Key Legal Developments in Neurent Medical Ltd v. Aerin Medical Inc., Case No. 1:24-cv-01070 (D. Del.):

1. Filing & Initial Pleadings:

   • Complaint Filed: Neurent Medical Ltd. initiated the patent infringement lawsuit by filing a complaint on September 24, 2024, in the District of Delaware. The complaint alleges infringement of U.S. Patent Nos. 12,096,973, 12,096,974, and 12,098,889.

2. Pre-Trial Motions of Substance:

   • Motion to Dismiss: On November 15, 2024, Aerin Medical Inc. filed a motion to dismiss the complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
   • Opposition to Motion to Dismiss: Neurent Medical Ltd. filed its brief in opposition to Aerin's motion to dismiss on December 9, 2024. Aerin's motion argued for dismissal by asserting that the asserted patents were invalid as anticipated, which Neurent contended was improper for the pleading stage and required factual determinations inconsistent with the complaint's allegations.
   • Motion to Consolidate Cases and Stay: An oral argument was scheduled for February 28, 2025, regarding a motion to consolidate cases and stay. This motion involved case 1:24-cv-01070-JLH and a related case, 1:23-cv-00756-JLH (Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al.).

3. Claim Construction (Markman) Outcomes:

   • As of the current date (2026-05-20), there is no publicly available information indicating that the case has reached the claim construction (Markman) stage or detailing any outcomes from such a proceeding.

4. Discovery Milestones with Strategic Significance:

   • Publicly available information at this time does not detail specific discovery milestones beyond the initial pleadings and motions.

5. Trial Events, Verdict, and Post-Trial Motions:

   • The case is still active, and there is no public record of a trial, verdict, or post-trial motions.

6. Settlement, Dismissal, Judgment, or Appeal:

   • The case remains in active litigation. There is no public record of a settlement, dismissal, judgment, or appeal.

7. Parallel PTAB IPR/PGR Proceedings:

   • IPR on U.S. Patent No. 12,096,973: Aerin Medical Inc. filed an Inter Partes Review (IPR) petition, IPR2025-01126, against Neurent Medical Ltd. et al., challenging U.S. Patent No. 12,096,973. The petition was filed on June 24, 2025.
   • Discretionary Denial of IPR: The Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) issued an Institution Decision denying the institution of IPR2025-01126 on November 5, 2025. Subsequently, a Director Discretionary Decision denying institution was issued on November 19, 2025. This denial means that the PTAB declined to review the patentability of U.S. Patent No. 12,096,973, removing a potential avenue for Aerin to challenge the patent outside of district court litigation.

analysis
The core task is to identify current counsel for Neurent Medical Ltd. in case 1:24-cv-01070.

Here's a summary of the most relevant information from the search results:

• Case Caption: The current defendant is Aerin Medical Inc., not CLARET EUROPEAN SPECIALTY LENDING COMPANY III, S.A R.L., despite the initial prompt's metadata. The case number 1:24-cv-01070 is consistently linked to Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc..
• Plaintiff: Neurent Medical Ltd. (and sometimes Neurent Medical Inc. appears in related filings, likely referring to the same or a closely related entity represented by the same counsel).
• Initial Counsel (as of Dec 2024): Document 31 lists "OF COUNSEL" from WILMER CUTLER PICKERING HALE AND DORR LLP (Gregory H. Lantier, David L. Cavanaugh, Joshua L. Stern, Alexis R. Cohen, David P. Yin, Bobby G. Hampton) and "Attorneys for Plaintiff Neurent Medical Ltd." from MORRIS, NICHOLS, ARSHT & TUNNELL LLP (Brian P. Egan, Cameron P. Clark).
• Withdrawal: Brian P. Egan (Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP) formally withdrew as counsel in May 2025. [cite: Not directly in the latest search, but found in previous steps. Reconfirming that the latest search did not provide a new entry contradicting this, and in fact, one result from Apr 2025 still listed him with his firm, so the withdrawal entry is still the most recent on his status. Re-evaluating based on "Docket last updated: 3 hours ago. Wednesday, April 02, 2025." in. This means that the PacerMonitor reference to Brian P. Egan is based on an April 2, 2025 update, and it still lists him. However, the previous search clearly indicated a withdrawal on May 21, 2025. I need to prioritize the explicit withdrawal notice over a general listing that might not be fully up-to-date with withdrawals. So, Brian Egan is out.]
• Firm Changes: Gregory H. Lantier and Alexis R. Cohen (previously WilmerHale) joined Sidley Austin LLP in January 2026. Given today's date (May 2026), if they are still representing Neurent, their affiliation would be with Sidley Austin. Sidley Austin's website profiles for both explicitly mention patent litigation, with Cohen's profile specifically noting representing a medical device company against a multi-patent litigation in the District of Delaware, resulting in a favorable settlement.. Lantier's profile also highlights his patent litigation experience, including being recognized as "Patent Litigator of the Year – DC Metro" in April 2026.
• Bobby G. Hampton: Left WilmerHale in October 2025 to become Assistant IP Counsel at Hologic, Inc. Therefore, he is no longer counsel of record.
• Current WilmerHale Attorneys: David L. Cavanaugh, Joshua L. Stern, and David P. Yin are still listed as partners at WilmerHale with strong patent litigation and IP experience. Cavanaugh is very active in PTAB proceedings, and Stern focuses on IP and complex commercial litigation, including medical devices and pharmaceuticals. Yin focuses on complex IP litigation across diverse technologies. Their firm is known for intellectual property litigation.
• Current Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP Attorneys: Cameron P. Clark is listed as an associate with an intellectual property litigation practice focusing on patent, copyright, and trademark cases. He has been recognized as a Rising Star in Delaware Super Lawyers.. Morris Nichols is a leading IP litigation firm in Delaware and often serves as local counsel.

Key outstanding question: Have Gregory H. Lantier and Alexis R. Cohen (now at Sidley Austin LLP) or their new firm made an appearance in this specific case (1:24-cv-01070) after January 2026, or have new counsel from WilmerHale or Morris Nichols replaced them? The search for docket entries after January 2026 did not yield specific attorney appearance updates, but the provided results show that Morris Nichols and WilmerHale were counsel for Neurent as of April 2025 and December 2024 respectively. Since the date is May 2026, and no explicit withdrawal for the WilmerHale attorneys (other than Hampton who left the firm) has been found, it is reasonable to assume they remain counsel, though their role might have shifted if Lantier and Cohen, now at Sidley, are taking over lead responsibilities. However, without an explicit docket entry from Sidley Austin, I cannot definitively list them as appearing counsel in this specific case. It's more accurate to list the WilmerHale attorneys who were explicitly on record in the last available detailed filing, with a caveat about the firm change for Lantier and Cohen.

Refined approach: I will list the attorneys from Document 31 (Dec 2024) and their firms, addressing the withdrawal of Brian Egan and Bobby Hampton, and the firm change for Lantier and Cohen. I will specify roles as "Lead Counsel" for WilmerHale/Sidley Austin attorneys, given their national IP focus, and "Local Counsel" for Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, given their Delaware focus and common role as local counsel.

Assumption: Given that no new counsel appearances were explicitly found after January 2026 for this case (1:24-cv-01070), and the prior search showed WilmerHale attorneys as "OF COUNSEL," I will assume that the active WilmerHale attorneys remain on record in an "of counsel" capacity. For Lantier and Cohen, their individual profiles confirm continued active patent litigation practice at Sidley Austin, but without a specific appearance in this case from Sidley, I will note their previous firm's appearance. However, the phrasing "OF COUNSEL" from the December 2024 document implies their firm, WilmerHale, was actively involved. It's plausible that WilmerHale remains involved and that those particular attorneys, even if they changed firms, were part of a team that remains on the case, with other WilmerHale attorneys now handling their direct roles if a substitution hasn't been formally entered.

However, the instruction is "Identify the counsel of record representing the plaintiff(s)". If an attorney has moved firms, and their new firm hasn't entered an appearance, they are technically no longer "counsel of record" via their old firm, nor via their new firm for this specific case. Therefore, I should only list attorneys who are currently with the firm that made the last appearance or whose new firm has filed a notice of appearance. Since I don't have a new appearance from Sidley Austin, and Lantier and Cohen left WilmerHale, I cannot list them as current counsel of record in this case through either WilmerHale or Sidley Austin without further explicit docket entries.

Let me re-examine the latest docket entries found. Result "Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc. (1:24-cv-01070), Delaware District Court - PacerMonitor" last updated "3 hours ago. Wednesday, April 02, 2025." (This timestamp is relative to when the search engine indexed it, not today's date, 2026-05-20). This entry lists "Neurent Medical Ltd. Represented By. Cameron Paul Clark Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP contact info. Brian P. Egan Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP contact info.". This is problematic as it still lists Brian Egan despite his withdrawal in May 2025. This indicates that this PacerMonitor summary might not be fully up-to-date with all docket events, especially withdrawals.

Given the potential for outdated public PacerMonitor summaries, I will rely on the direct document filing from December 2024, the explicit withdrawal notice for Brian Egan [previously found, confirmed by no conflicting recent info], and the firm changes for Lantier, Cohen, and Hampton. I will infer that any WilmerHale attorneys listed in Document 31 who have not officially withdrawn or changed firms still represent the plaintiff through WilmerHale.

The prompt specified "cite specific docket entries, opinion citations, and URLs when grounding claims". Without a more recent docket entry explicitly showing current counsel after the firm changes for Lantier, Cohen, and Hampton, or a withdrawal for the WilmerHale firm as a whole, it's difficult to definitively confirm who is currently active through which firm, other than Cameron P. Clark if no withdrawal has been filed for him.

Let's assume the December 2024 filing is the most detailed formal listing of counsel, and then layer on the subsequent known changes (Egan's withdrawal, Hampton's departure, Lantier/Cohen firm change).

For Lantier and Cohen, since they moved firms in January 2026, and no new appearance from Sidley Austin has been explicitly found for this case, I cannot list them as counsel of record for Neurent Medical Ltd. in this specific case through Sidley Austin. If they were "of counsel" through WilmerHale, and left WilmerHale, their representation through WilmerHale would also cease unless a new arrangement was made and documented. Therefore, I will exclude them and Bobby G. Hampton from the current counsel list based on the information available.

This leaves:

• David L. Cavanaugh (WilmerHale)
• Joshua L. Stern (WilmerHale)
• David P. Yin (WilmerHale)
• Cameron P. Clark (Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP)

I will proceed with these four, noting their roles and experience. I must explicitly mention the firm changes for Lantier, Cohen and Hampton as reasons for their exclusion from the current counsel list.
The phrase "Neurent Medical Ltd v. CLARET EUROPEAN SPECIALTY LENDING COMPANY III, S.A R.L." is the caption provided, but the actual case is "Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc.". I will use the actual case defendant in the summary.

Here's the plan:

1. State the correct defendant in the case caption.
2. List the active counsel from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP who have not withdrawn or changed firms for whom no new appearance was filed, identifying them as "Of Counsel" as per the December 2024 filing.
3. List the active counsel from Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, identifying them as "Local Counsel."
4. For each, provide name, role, firm, office, and relevant experience.
5. Explicitly mention the attorneys who were initially listed but are no longer considered active counsel due to withdrawal or firm change.

Final check on roles: Morris Nichols is widely recognized as local Delaware counsel. WilmerHale is a national firm, so their attorneys are likely lead counsel, with the Delaware firm handling local appearances. The December 2024 filing lists WilmerHale attorneys under "OF COUNSEL" and Morris Nichols attorneys under "Attorneys for Plaintiff Neurent Medical Ltd.". This suggests that Morris Nichols attorneys are the formally appearing counsel, and WilmerHale are "of counsel" to them. I will adjust the roles accordingly.The plaintiff, Neurent Medical Ltd., is represented by counsel from Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP and Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP in the case of Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc., 1:24-cv-01070, in the District of Delaware. It is important to note that while the initial case metadata provided "CLARET EUROPEAN SPECIALTY LENDING COMPANY III, S.A R.L." as the defendant, docket entries consistently show Aerin Medical Inc. as the defendant in case 1:24-cv-01070.

Based on filings up to December 2024 and subsequent public information as of May 20, 2026, the following attorneys represent Neurent Medical Ltd.:

From Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Local Counsel)

• Cameron P. Clark

  • Role: Local Counsel
  • Firm & Office: Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP, Wilmington, DE.
  • Experience: Mr. Clark is an associate focusing on intellectual property litigation, including patent, copyright, and trademark cases across various technologies. He has been recognized in Delaware Super Lawyers as a Rising Star for intellectual property litigation. Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP is a prominent Delaware firm for patent litigation, often serving as local counsel.

• Note on Brian P. Egan: Brian P. Egan, also listed from Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP in a December 2024 filing, formally withdrew as counsel in May 2025.

From Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (Of Counsel)

The following attorneys were listed as "OF COUNSEL" from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP in a December 2024 filing. Given no subsequent formal withdrawal of the firm or these specific individuals (who remain with the firm), they are considered active in an "Of Counsel" capacity.

• David L. Cavanaugh

  • Role: Of Counsel (likely lead counsel functions)
  • Firm & Office: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Mr. Cavanaugh has extensive experience in IP litigation, patent procurement, technology transfer, and licensing. He is highly active in post-grant proceedings at the U.S. Patent Office, having been lead counsel or counsel of record on over 400 inter partes review (IPR) proceedings. He also developed and taught patent litigation and post-grant proceedings at American University Washington College of Law.

• Joshua L. Stern

  • Role: Of Counsel (likely lead counsel functions)
  • Firm & Office: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Mr. Stern's practice focuses on intellectual property and complex commercial litigation. He has represented clients in U.S. district courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and before the Patent Trial and Appeal Board. His cases have involved various technologies, including medical devices, pharmaceuticals, microprocessors, and data storage.

• David P. Yin

  • Role: Of Counsel (likely lead counsel functions)
  • Firm & Office: Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, Washington, D.C.
  • Experience: Mr. Yin focuses on complex intellectual property litigation, including patent infringement, trade secret misappropriation, and licensing disputes. His experience spans diverse technologies such as wireless communications, computer memory, molecular diagnostics, and pulse oximetry. He represents clients in district courts, the U.S. International Trade Commission, and at the appellate level.

• Note on Gregory H. Lantier and Alexis R. Cohen: While initially listed from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, both Gregory H. Lantier and Alexis R. Cohen joined Sidley Austin LLP as Intellectual Property partners in January 2026. There is no specific docket entry showing Sidley Austin LLP entering an appearance for Neurent Medical Ltd. in this case after their move, so they are not formally listed as counsel of record for Neurent in this specific action via their new firm.

• Note on Bobby G. Hampton: Bobby G. Hampton, also initially listed from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP, left the firm in October 2025 to become Assistant IP Counsel at Hologic, Inc., and is no longer counsel of record in this case.

Based on available public web search results, the specific counsel of record representing the defendant, CLARET EUROPEAN SPECIALTY LENDING COMPANY III, S.A R.L., in the patent infringement case Neurent Medical Ltd v. CLARET EUROPEAN SPECIALTY LENDING COMPANY III, S.A R.L. (1:24-cv-01070 D. Del.) cannot be definitively identified at this time. Filings that would explicitly list counsel appearances are typically found on the court's PACER system, which is not directly accessible through public web searches.

While Nathaniel Norgren is identified as the Chief Legal Counsel for Claret Capital Partners, this indicates an in-house role for a related entity and does not confirm his appearance as litigation counsel for the specific defendant in this lawsuit. No other specific attorneys or law firms are consistently listed in publicly available information as representing CLARET EUROPEAN SPECIALTY LENDING COMPANY III, S.A R.L. in this particular case.