Litigation

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

dismissed

2025-2113, 2025-2114, 2025-2121

Terminated
2026-08-27

Patents at issue (3)

10610675PTAB settled/terminated
10894011PTAB settled/terminated
11679077PTAB settled/terminated

Plaintiffs (1)

Summary

The Foundry, LLC appealed PTAB decisions in IPR2024-00279, IPR2024-00280, and IPR2024-00669. The Federal Circuit dismissed the consolidated appeals by order dated August 27, 2026, under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b).

Case overview & background

Plain-language overview of the case: parties, accused product, patents at issue, and why the suit matters.

I'll research this case across the docket, PTAB records, and legal press.

Good foundation. Now let me dig into the parties, the district court case, and the appeal outcomes.

Let me pin down the PTAB outcomes, the appeals, and the market/corporate context.

Case Overview — The Foundry, LLC v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al. (Fed. Cir. Nos. 2025-2113, -2114, -2121)

The parties and the technology in dispute. This is a competitor-versus-competitor fight in the emerging market for posterior nasal nerve (PNN) ablation devices used to treat chronic rhinitis. The real plaintiff-side pairing in the district court was Aerin Medical Inc. (a Delaware corporation headquartered in Mountain View, CA, which commercializes the VivAer and RhinAer Stylus systems for chronic rhinitis and nasal airway obstruction) together with The Foundry, LLC (a California LLC, Menlo Park, CA — a long-running medical-device incubator whose managing partner is Hanson Gifford and whose principals, Gifford and Mark Deem, are the named inventors on the asserted Foundry patents). The Foundry is not an operating company in this suit; it holds the patent portfolio and Aerin is the exclusive licensee, which places the Foundry in the NPE-adjacent "incubator/monetization" category rather than in the classic PAE mold. The defendants are Neurent Medical Ltd. (Ireland, Galway) and its wholly owned U.S. subsidiary Neurent Medical Inc. (Delaware corp., Braintree, MA). The accused product is the NEUROMARK System (Neuromark Device plus Neuromark Generator), an impedance-controlled multipoint radiofrequency ablation system for disrupting posterior nasal nerves. Notably, Neuromark received FDA 510(k) clearance in October 2021 (K212666) using Aerin's own RhinAer stylus (K192471) as the predicate device — the classic "clear your path through the competitor's device, then get sued" posture (see the Premera medical policy summary of FDA clearances at https://www.premera.com/medicalpolicies/7.01.168.pdf, and the Amended Complaint, Ex. 1035 to IPR2024-00279).

The patents. The underlying district court action, Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Inc., C.A. No. 23-756 (D. Del.), filed July 11, 2023, originally asserted eight patents — five owned by Aerin ('597, '194, '318, '271, '286) and three owned by The Foundry: U.S. Pat. No. 10,610,675 (methods of treating a nasal condition by applying energy, e.g., RF, to target tissue in the nasal/nasopharyngeal passage), U.S. Pat. No. 10,894,011, and U.S. Pat. No. 11,679,077 (apparatus for treating rhinitis comprising an elongate body with multiple RF electrodes in the distal portion and a coupled RF generator). Only the three Foundry-owned patents are on appeal in the numbers you flagged: 2025-2113 ↔ IPR2024-00279 ('675), 2025-2114 ↔ IPR2024-00280 ('011), and 2025-2121 ↔ IPR2024-00669 ('077). Neurent did not merely defend — it counterclaimed on its own '262 patent and separately sued Aerin in C.A. No. 24-1070-JLH asserting patents '973, '974, and '889 (later consolidated), prompting Aerin to file its own IPRs against Neurent's patents (IPR2025-01125, -01126).

Procedural posture and venue. Venue matters here for two reasons: the case sits in the District of Delaware before Judge Jennifer L. Hall (early filings in the same docket are captioned to "(GBW)"), which is proper as to the Delaware-incorporated Neurent Medical Inc. and which remains the default patent forum for the corporate-vehicle defendant even post-TC Heartland; and Delaware's practice of granting case-wide IPR stays made the PTAB the decisive forum. Neurent filed eight IPRs on January 18, 2024 (IPR2024-00275 through -00282) plus IPR2024-00669 (filed April 3, 2024, apparently a refiling of the '077 challenge after IPR2024-00281 was terminated on April 24, 2024), all before the same panel (APJs Snedden, Mitchell, Majors). The Board instituted on all asserted patents in July 2024, and on August 8, 2024 the district court stayed the entire action — including Neurent's counterclaims — pending final written decisions (see the parties' Joint Status Report filed after the court's Feb. 28, 2025 oral order, available via PTAB exhibits at ptacts.uspto.gov). The FWDs issued July 21, 2025, and at least the '077 decision (IPR2024-00669, Paper 43) is expressly styled a "Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable" under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a). Both sides appealed; Aerin's appeals (2025-2099/-2100/-2101, from IPR2024-00277, -00278, -00282) and The Foundry's three appeals were then dismissed together by a single nonprecedential order dated August 27, 2026 under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), "the parties having so agreed," each side bearing its own costs, with the mandate issued the same day (https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-2099.ORDER.8-27-2026_2746255.pdf).

Why the case is notable. First, it is a clean illustration of IPR linkage being outcome-determinative: the Delaware court stayed everything for the PTAB, the PTAB invalidated the asserted claims, and the appeals evaporated without a merits Federal Circuit ruling — so the entire asserted Aerin/Foundry family essentially fell without a district court claim construction, trial, or damages phase. Second, Neurent's petitions ran a priority-collapse theory, arguing the '675 claims (and siblings) were entitled only to their October 22, 2019 filing date because the nasal-treatment subject matter was new matter added to a continuation in a family that traced back to 2005 provisionals about neurotoxin for bronchial/cosmetic applications — turning the case into a written-description/priority case as much as a prior-art case, with prior art including Saadat, Makower + Fang, and a "Deem" reference. Third, it reflects the Foundry/Aerin hybrid ownership structure — incubator-owned patents asserted alongside an operating company's own patents, with the operating company as exclusive licensee — which is a recurring pattern in medtech. Fourth, the market context is real and growing: RhinAer, Neuromark, and Stryker's ClariFix compete for the same PNN-ablation reimbursement codes, and the parallel Neurent-v-Aerin counterclaims show both sides were positioning for a cross-license.

Sourcing gaps / caution. Two points are not well sourced and I would not assert them as fact: (1) whether a confidential global settlement or license produced the agreed Aug. 27, 2026 dismissals — the order itself only recites that "the parties having so agreed," and I found no public settlement announcement; and (2) the precise outcomes of IPR2024-00279 and IPR2024-00280 — docket aggregators show FWDs (Paper 41) in both on July 21, 2025, but only the '077 decision's "all challenged claims unpatentable" characterization is confirmed in the text I retrieved; the companion outcomes should be verified on PTAB P-TACTS. Likewise, the current status of C.A. No. 23-756 (JLH) after the stay is not confirmed by the sources I found — given the Federal Circuit dismissals, a stipulated dismissal is likely but unverified.

Key legal developments & outcome

Major rulings, motions, claim construction, settlements, and the present posture or final disposition.

I'll research this case across the district court docket, PTAB, and Federal Circuit. Let me start with several parallel searches.

Good foundation. Now let me dig into the PTAB final written decisions, the district court docket, and any settlement/appeal developments.

Case-framing note before the chronology

The three patents in your metadata — 10,610,675 (‘675), 10,894,011 (‘011), 11,679,077 (‘077) — are all The Foundry, LLC patents. They were asserted not in a stand-alone Foundry suit but as part of a consolidated Delaware action in which Aerin Medical Inc. is the lead plaintiff: Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC v. Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., C.A. No. 1:23-cv-00756 (D. Del.), assigned initially to Judge Gregory B. Williams (23-756 (GBW)) and later to Judge Jennifer L. Hall (23-756 (JLH)). Aerin is the exclusive licensee of the Foundry patents and owns the other five asserted patents.

So the answer below covers (a) the district court infringement litigation and (b) the parallel PTAB/ Federal Circuit track that generated the appeal numbers 2025-2113/-2114/-2121 in your metadata.

1. Pre-suit notice

2. Filing and initial pleadings (2023)

3. Stay pending IPR — the pivotal pre-trial ruling

  • 2024-08-08 (D.I. 93) — The court entered the parties’ stipulation staying the entire action — the patent claims, Neurent’s defenses, and Neurent’s ’262/tort/unfair-competition counterclaims — until the PTAB issues final written decisions in the IPRs on the Aerin/Foundry patents. This is the single most consequential pre-trial order in the case: it froze Markman and merits discovery. Source: Joint Status Report (D.I. 93 recital).
  • 2024-10-24 — Aerin statutorily disclaimed all asserted claims of the ’597 and ’194 patents that Neurent had challenged (mooting the corresponding IPRs — IPR2024-00275, -00276). Source: Joint Status Report.

4. Related second suit and consolidation (2024–2025)

5. Parallel PTAB proceedings (Neurent v. The Foundry/Aerin)

6. Appeal to the Federal Circuit and dismissal

  • September 2025 (inferred from docket numbers) — Notices of appeal filed after the July 2025 FWDs: Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Inc., Nos. 2025-2099, -2100, -2101 (from IPR2024-00277, -00278, -00282) and The Foundry, LLC v. Neurent Medical Inc., Nos. 2025-2113, -2114, -2121 (from IPR2024-00279, -00280, -00669). I could not retrieve the exact notice-of-appeal dates.
  • 2026-08-27 — Both sets of appeals dismissed by order: “The parties having so agreed, it is ordered that: (1) The proceedings are DISMISSED under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b). (2) Each side shall bear their own costs,” issued as a mandate. Source: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-2099.ORDER.8-27-2026_2746255.pdf
    • A Rule 42(b) dismissal on the parties’ agreement is a joint stipulation of dismissal — consistent with a settlement or business resolution, but the order itself does not state a settlement, and I did not find a public settlement announcement. Treat the reason as unconfirmed.

Checklist against your requested items

Item Status
Complaint / answer / counterclaims Yes — 2023-07-11 complaint; amended complaint (D.I. 17); answer + counterclaims (D.I. 40, 2024-03-21); amended counterclaims adding the ’262 patent (D.I. 81, 2024-07-08)
Motions to dismiss Neurent’s partial MTD denied (D.I. 74); Plaintiffs’ MTD of counterclaims mooted (D.I. 82) then renewed (D.I. 89, 2024-08-05); Aerin’s MTDs in the consolidated 24-1070 action pending as of late 2025
Transfer No transfer motion found. Case stayed in D. Del. throughout
Stay pending IPR Yes — the defining event: full case stay, D.I. 93, 2024-08-08
Summary judgment None — case never got past the stay/Markman track
Markman No merits claim construction by the district court. Claim construction was effectively litigated in the IPRs. Markman hearing was scheduled for 2026-05-28; I could not verify whether it occurred or its outcome
Discovery milestones Infringement/invalidity contentions exchanged, core technical document production, discovery responses (2024–2025); PTAB expert depositions (Bu-Saba 2024-10-17 and 2025-02-21). No district court expert discovery
Trial / verdict / JMOL / new trial / fees None — trial was set for 2027-08-23 and never reached
Final disposition PTAB: all asserted Foundry claims (’675, ’011, ’077) held unpatentable; appeal dismissed 2026-08-27 under Rule 42(b). District court: stayed, then scheduled toward a 2027 trial; current status unverified (see caveats)
Parallel IPRs Yes — eight Neurent IPRs (2024-00275 to -00282) plus -00669; statutory disclaimer killed the ’597/’194 IPRs; Aerin’s later IPR2025-01125/-01126 against Neurent’s patents

Caveats / unsourced points

  • I could not verify the exact dates of: the D.I. 74 denial of Neurent’s partial MTD; the ruling on D.I. 89 (Plaintiffs’ MTD of the amended counterclaims); or the Markman outcome in May 2026.
  • I could not verify the current posture of the district court case as of 2026-09-25. The last docket activity surfaced was November 2025; if the 2026-08-27 Federal Circuit dismissal followed a global settlement, the district court actions (-756 and -1070) were presumably also dismissed, but I found no public confirmation of that.
  • The precise FWD dates differ slightly by source: Docket Alarm lists 2025-07-21 for IPR2024-00280; Law360’s PTAB case page is dated 2025-07-15 for the “three nasal airway patents” ruling; iPverse lists 2025-07-21 as the termination date for IPR2024-00669. I’d confirm individual FWD dates on PTAB PTACTS before quoting any single date.
  • Counsel (well sourced): Neurent — Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale & Dorr (David Cavanaugh, Gregory Lantier, Alexis Cohen, Joshua L. Stern, Gilbert Smolenski, Alexander Nemtzow, Sarah Murphy) with Delaware local counsel; Aerin/Foundry — Finnegan (J. Michael Jakes, Kathleen A. Daley, Sonja W. Sahlsten) and Greenberg Traurig (Heath J. Briggs) in the IPRs.

Plaintiff representatives

Counsel of record for the plaintiff(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research this case across the Federal Circuit docket, the underlying district court litigation, and PTAB proceedings.

I have the core case map. Now let me drill into counsel of record at the Federal Circuit and the district court/PTAB.

Good progress. Let me pin down the Federal Circuit docket entries and the full Delaware counsel list, plus investigate the Greenberg Traurig appearance.

Scope note before the list

The case in the metadata is the Federal Circuit appeal (Nos. 2025‑2113, 2025‑2114, 2025‑2121), consolidated with Aerin's appeal No. 2025‑2099 and dismissed by order dated Aug. 27, 2026 under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b) (https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-2099.ORDER.8-27-2026_2746255.pdf). There is no "plaintiff" at the Federal Circuit — The Foundry, LLC is the appellant. The "plaintiff" side exists in the underlying infringement action, Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC v. Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., C.A. No. 1:23‑cv‑00756‑JLH (D. Del.) (consolidated with C.A. No. 24‑1070‑JLH), and it is that counsel corps — the same group that prosecuted the three IPRs now on appeal — that I detail below.

The three patents in the metadata ('675, '011, '077) are the Foundry-owned patents challenged in IPR2024‑00279/‑00280/‑00669. Aerin is the exclusive licensee of the Foundry patents (Foundry's 37 C.F.R. § 42.8 mandatory notices, IPR2024‑00280).

Counsel representing The Foundry, LLC (with plaintiff-side co-plaintiff Aerin Medical Inc.)

Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner, LLP — lead/primary patent counsel

Attorney Role Office Notes
J. Michael Jakes Of counsel (district court); Finnegan's named appellate/lead name on the case Washington, DC (901 New York Ave. NW) Listed as "Of Counsel" on the plaintiffs' brief signature block in D. Del.; Finnegan's appellate practice leader. Listed in the Aug. 3, 2023 pro hac vice motion for the D. Del. case.
Kathleen A. Daley (Reg. No. 36,116) Lead counsel for The Foundry in the three Foundry IPRs (the appealed proceedings) Washington, DC Signed Foundry's Power of Attorney and Mandatory Notices as "Lead Counsel for Patent Owner The Foundry, LLC" (Feb. 8, 2024); also of counsel in the district court case.
Sonja W. Sahlsten (Reg. No. 70,927) Of counsel (district court); lead counsel for Aerin in the companion Aerin IPRs (‑00275/‑00276/‑00277/‑00278/‑00282) Washington, DC Signed Aerin's mandatory notices as lead counsel; listed in the D. Del. pro hac vice motion.
Christopher C. Howes (Reg. No. 79,544) Of counsel / backup PTAB counsel Washington, DC Back-up counsel on the mandatory notices; Finnegan profile lists the Aerin/Foundry v. Neurent matter among his experience.
Jason Stach (Reg. No. 54,464) Back-up PTAB counsel Atlanta, GA (271 17th St. NW, Suite 1400) Named back-up counsel in the Aerin IPR notices.
Anthony J. Berlenbach (Reg. No. 77,963) Back-up PTAB counsel Washington, DC Named back-up counsel in the Aerin IPR notices.
Kathleen Hanley Galleher (Reg. No. 80,837) Back-up PTAB counsel Reston, VA (1875 Explorer St., Suite 800) Named back-up counsel; Finnegan profile lists this matter under her experience.

Finnegan's own case page confirms the engagement: "Representing Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC in a patent infringement case involving medical devices for treating nasal airways. 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." (https://www.finnegan.com/en/work/experience/aerin-medical-inc-et-al-v-neurent-medical-inc-et-al-123-cv-00756-d-del.html)

McCarter & English, LLP — Delaware local counsel

Attorney Role Office Notes
Daniel M. Silver (D. Del. Bar #4758) Lead Delaware/local counsel for plaintiffs in C.A. No. 23‑756‑JLH Wilmington, DE (405 N. King St., 8th Floor) Docketed as "LEAD ATTORNEY" for The Foundry, LLC on the D. Del. docket; signed the plaintiffs' brief signature block as "Attorneys for Plaintiffs Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC." Long-time Delaware IP litigator.
Alexandra M. Joyce (D. Del. Bar #6423) Delaware counsel Wilmington, DE Co-signed the same brief; docketed as an attorney for plaintiff The Foundry, LLC.

Source for the signature block: Plaintiffs' Opening Brief in Support of Motion to Dismiss Defendants' First Amended Counterclaims, Case 1:23‑cv‑00756‑JLH, D.I. 94 (filed Aug. 12, 2024) — Finnegan's Jakes, Daley, Sahlsten, and Howes listed as "Of Counsel," with McCarter & English's Silver and Joyce as Delaware counsel.

Important caveats and one unresolved discrepancy

  1. Federal Circuit counsel of record — not verified. I could not retrieve the Federal Circuit docket sheet or a Notice of Appearance for Nos. 2025‑2113/‑2114/‑2121 or the consolidated 2025‑2099. The only CAFC document I could confirm is the dismissal order. Given the PTAB power of attorney runs to Finnegan (Customer No. 22,852), Finnegan is the near-certain appellate firm, but I will not state who signed the CAFC appearances without the docket.

  2. Greenberg Traurig appeared at PTAB depositions claiming to represent The Foundry. In the Oct. 17, 2024 and Feb. 21, 2025 deposition transcripts of Dr. Nicolas Bu‑Saba (Ex. 2002 in IPR2024‑00279/‑00280/‑00669), Heath Briggs of Greenberg Traurig states on the record: "I am a patent attorney with Greenberg Traurig, and I represent the patent owner in this case, which is The Foundry." That is in tension with the § 42.8 mandatory notices, which designate Finnegan as counsel of record for Foundry with a Finnegan power of attorney. Two plausible explanations — Greenberg Traurig acted as an additional/back-up firm outside the formal PTAB designation, or the transcript reference is to a related matter — but I could not resolve this, and I flag it rather than guess. If it matters, it should be checked against the PTAB counsel-of-record listings and the CAFC docket.

  3. Party alignment caution. Some aggregator pages (Justia, CourtListener's party view) mix the two sides' counsel because the Delaware case pits the same firms against each other in mirror-image filings. Jack B. Blumenfeld and Brian P. Egan (Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell) appear repeatedly in the D. Del. docket excerpts — those are Neurent's Delaware counsel, not plaintiffs'. I have excluded them from the plaintiff-side list above.

  4. No sealing issue identified. The counsel designations above come from public filings (the § 42.8 notices, the D.I. 94 brief, the pro hac vice motion, and Finnegan's case page). The litigation was stayed pending the IPRs, so there is limited later-stage district-court activity.

Bottom line: for The Foundry, LLC, the plaintiff-side/appellant team is Finnegan (J. Michael Jakes, Kathleen A. Daley, Sonja W. Sahlsten, Christopher C. Howes, with Jason Stach, Anthony J. Berlenbach, Kathleen Hanley Galleher as back-up) in the litigation and the IPRs, plus McCarter & English (Daniel M. Silver and Alexandra M. Joyce) as Delaware local counsel, with a possible additional Greenberg Traurig appearance in the IPRs that warrants verification.

Defendant representatives

Counsel of record for the defendant(s): attorneys, firms, and roles (lead counsel, of counsel, local counsel).

I'll research the defendant-side counsel across the Delaware docket, the PTAB IPRs, and the Federal Circuit appeal.

Good — I now have the PTAB-side picture. Let me verify the district court appearances and the Federal Circuit counsel for Neurent.

Now let me pin down the Federal Circuit appearances, the May 2025 withdrawal, and Neurent's in-house/other counsel.

Defendant-side counsel of record — The Foundry, LLC v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al. (Fed. Cir. 2025‑2113/‑2114/‑2121) and the underlying Delaware action

Scope note. No counsel appear for "defendants" at the Federal Circuit; Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd. are appellees in the Foundry appeals (2025‑2113/‑2114/‑2121), in Aerin's appeals (2025‑2099/‑2100/‑2101, consolidated, lead case 25‑2099), and were defendants/counterclaimants in Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC v. Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., C.A. No. 1:23‑cv‑00756‑JLH (D. Del.) (consolidated with Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc., No. 1:24‑cv‑01070‑JLH) and petitioners in IPR2024‑00275 through ‑00282 and ‑00669. The team below is the same across all three fora, which is why it is unusually well documented.

Bottom line: the defense was led by Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP (WilmerHale) — David L. Cavanaugh as lead, with Gregory H. Lantier, Joshua L. Stern, Alexis R. Cohen, Alexander J. Nemtzow and others as back‑up — with Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP (Jack B. Blumenfeld; Brian P. Egan) as Delaware counsel.

1. WilmerHale — lead trial, PTAB and appellate counsel

Attorney Role Office Note
David L. Cavanaugh (Reg. No. 36,476) Lead counsel — Neurent's designated lead in every Neurent‑filed IPR (‑00275/‑00276/‑00277/‑00278/‑00279/‑00280/‑00282/‑00669) and lead counsel/patent owner's lead in the Aerin‑filed IPRs (‑01124/‑01125/‑01126/‑01127); D. Del. pro hac vice; the only Neurent attorney shown on the Federal Circuit appellee entry I could retrieve Washington, DC (2100 Pennsylvania Ave. NW) Registered practitioner; Board expressly noted "Petitioners' lead counsel, David Cavanaugh, is a registered practitioner" in the IPR2024‑00279 pro hac vice motion; handled the April 23, 2025 consolidated oral argument for Neurent as Petitioner.
Gregory H. Lantier Back‑up counsel, PTAB (pro hac vice); D. Del. pro hac vice; a WilmerHale partner (named in the PTAB service list and in deposition prep) Washington, DC Admitted pro hac vice by Board order in IPR2024‑00279/‑00280/‑00669 (Sept. 2024) and represented Petitioners in the D. Del. action; listed as back‑up in the IPR2025‑01125 mandatory notices.
Joshua L. Stern Back‑up counsel, PTAB and D. Del. (pro hac vice); executed the declaration supporting Neurent's motion to dismiss briefing in D. Del. Boston / Washington, DC Appeared for Petitioners at the Sept. 25, 2024 expert depositions; appeared at the April 23, 2025 PTAB hearing.
Alexis R. Cohen (Reg. No. 76,998) Back‑up counsel, PTAB; D. Del. pro hac vice Washington, DC Appeared at the April 23, 2025 oral hearing; took/defended depositions for Petitioners.
Alexander J. ("Alex") Nemtzow (Reg. No. 82,130) Back‑up counsel, PTAB Boston, MA Appeared at the April 23, 2025 oral hearing and at depositions.
Gilbert Smolenski (Reg. No. 78,549) Back‑up counsel, PTAB Boston, MA Appeared for Petitioners at the Oct. 17, 2024 Bu‑Saba deposition.
Bobby G. Hampton (Reg. No. 79,136) Back‑up counsel, PTAB; D. Del. pro hac vice (July 2025) Boston / Washington, DC Named on the IPR2025‑01125 notice; PHV motion granted in 23‑756 on July 11, 2025.
David P. Yin D. Del. pro hac vice (July 2025 PHV motion, D.I. 120) — Added for electronic noticing July 11, 2025; earlier PHV motion in No. 24‑1070 (D.I. 15).
Sarah J. Murphy WilmerHale attorney (appears as Petitioners' counsel of record in deposition appearances) Boston, MA Appeared for Petitioners at the Sept. 25, 2024 Martin deposition.

Source anchors: Neurent Medical Ltd.'s Patent Owner Mandatory Notices, IPR2025‑01125 (lead counsel David Cavanaugh; back‑up Lantier, Cohen, Stern, Nemtzow, Smolenski, Hampton; service at WHNeurentIPRService@wilmerhale.com); Petitioner's Unopposed Motion for Pro Hac Vice Admission of Gregory H. Lantier, IPR2024‑00279, Paper 17 (Sept. 19, 2024); Board order granting PHV for Lantier and Stern in IPR2024‑00279/‑00280/‑00669; Record of Oral Hearing, IPR2024‑00277/‑00278/‑00282 (held Apr. 23, 2025); D. Del. C.A. No. 23‑756 D.I. 11 (PHV motion for Lantier, Cavanaugh, Cohen, Stern, filed Aug. 22, 2023; SO ORDERED Aug. 23, 2023); No. 24‑1070 D.I. 15–17 (PHV motion for Lantier, Cavanaugh, Stern, Cohen, Yin, Hampton; granted Nov. 6, 2024).

Federal Circuit: the Justia docket entry for companion appeal 25‑2101 (Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Inc.) lists the appellees Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd. as represented by David Langdon Cavanaugh — i.e., WilmerHale carried the appeal as well (https://dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-2101). I could not retrieve the full CAFC appearance list for 2025‑2113/‑2114/‑2121, so I cannot rule out additional WilmerHale appellate appearances (e.g., Lantier, whose practice is appellate‑heavy) or a separate appellate firm.

2. Morris, Nichols, Arsht & Tunnell LLP — Delaware counsel

Attorney Role Office Note
Jack B. Blumenfeld Delaware counsel for Neurent in C.A. No. 23‑756 Wilmington, DE (1201 N. Market St.) Signed Neurent's stipulation (D.I. 8, Aug. 1, 2023) and its reply brief on the motion to dismiss (D.I. 23, Nov. 20, 2023). 40+ years of patent litigation; described by Chambers as the "dean of the Delaware IP bar"; has tried pharmaceutical, medical‑device and biotech cases (Pfizer, UCB, Edwards Lifesciences, Bard, Thermo Fisher) and argued in the Federal Circuit.
Brian P. Egan Lead Delaware attorney of record for Neurent Wilmington, DE Docketed as "LEAD ATTORNEY"; filed the PHV motions/motions to dismiss papers, the pro hac vice fee payments, Neurent's discovery notices and its June 2, 2025 infringement contentions. Also the lead Delaware name for other medtech/pharma defendants (e.g., in the Moderna/Arbutus‑side Delaware litigation).
Cameron Clark Delaware‑side filer for Neurent (notices of service, D.I. 109 and D.I. 119; notice of IPR event) Wilmington, DE (firm attribution not independently confirmed) Appears on Neurent's behalf on the 23‑756 docket in 2025; I could not verify his firm or admission status from the sources retrieved — treat as unconfirmed.

Unresolved docket item: C.A. No. 23‑756 D.I. 114 (May 21, 2025) — "NOTICE of Withdrawal of Counsel by Neurent Medical Inc., Neurent Medical Ltd. (Egan, Brian)." The full text is not in the sources I retrieved, so I cannot state which attorney withdrew. One data point worth flagging without asserting causation: in an unrelated Delaware‑originated Federal Circuit appeal (No. 26‑1581, Moderna/Arbutus line), the PACER party listings show Jack B. Blumenfeld "TERMINATED: 05/21/2025" — the same date as D.I. 114 here. That coincidence suggests a firm‑wide or retirement‑related withdrawal, but it is not proof and the Blumenfeld termination shown is from a different case's docket. Verify against the actual D.I. 114 PDF on PACER.

3. In‑house / corporate representatives

  • Stephen Horan — introduced at the April 23, 2025 PTAB consolidated oral hearing by WilmerHale as "a company representative from Neurent." His precise title (e.g., CEO/GC/IP counsel) is not confirmed by the retrieved sources. I found no public record of a Neurent general counsel appearing of record; Neurent's litigation appears to have been run entirely through outside counsel.
  • (For contrast, and to avoid a common mix‑up: the "chief legal officer, Irina Ridley" identified at that same hearing is Aerin's CLO — i.e., the plaintiff/patent‑owner side — not Neurent's.)

4. Cross‑check that resolves an open item from the prior sections

The earlier "Plaintiff representatives" section flagged as unresolved why Greenberg Traurig's Heath Briggs stated on the record that he represented "the patent owner in this case, which is The Foundry," when Finnegan had signed the § 42.8 notices. The defendant‑side research clarifies this: Greenberg Traurig is on the Aerin/Foundry (patent‑owner) side, not Neurent's. At the April 23, 2025 consolidated hearing, Greenberg Traurig's Benjamin Gilford, Heath Briggs and Trenton Ward appeared "on behalf of the Patent Owner, Aerin Medical," while WilmerHale (Cavanaugh, Cohen, Nemtzow, Stern) appeared for Neurent as Petitioner; Greenberg Traurig (Briggs as lead, Reg. No. 54,919) also filed Aerin's later IPR2025‑01124 through ‑01127 petitions against Neurent's patents, using the service address AerinMed-IPRs@gtlaw.com. So Greenberg Traurig and Finnegan were both on the Aerin/Foundry side (apparently a substitution/addition of PTAB counsel), and the earlier "tension" is not a conflict between the parties. The § 42.8 designation of Finnegan in the Feb. 2024 notices versus Greenberg Traurig's 2024–2025 appearances is a timing/designation question only.

5. Sourcing caveats

  1. Federal Circuit appearances are only partially verified. I confirmed Cavanaugh as Neurent's appellee counsel via the aggregator docket for 25‑2101; I did not retrieve the CAFC docket sheets or Notices of Appearance for 2025‑2099, 2025‑2100, 2025‑2113, 2025‑2114, or 2025‑2121. Because the appeals were dismissed by agreed order (Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), Aug. 27, 2026), some appearances may never have been perfected.
  2. D.I. 114 withdrawal contents unknown — see above. Do not assume it was Blumenfeld without PACER confirmation.
  3. Cameron Clark's firm is unconfirmed; he may be a Morris Nichols associate, but I found no source stating it.
  4. Stephen Horan's title is unconfirmed; he is documented only as Neurent's "company representative" at the PTAB hearing.
  5. No sealed‑counsel issue identified for the defendant side: every name above comes from public filings (PTAB mandatory notices, PHV motions and orders, D. Del. docket text, the PTAB hearing transcript, and deposition appearance pages). The litigation substance was largely stayed pending the IPRs, so the defendant's D. Del. filings are concentrated in 2023–2025 pleadings and discovery notices rather than trial‑stage documents.
  6. One metadata check: the D. Del. docket confirms the case was originally assigned to Judge Gregory B. Williams (hence "(GBW)" on the July 2023 filings) and reassigned to Judge Jennifer L. Hall on Jan. 8, 2024 — consistent with the earlier sections, and consistent with the "-JLH" caption in the later pleadings and the consolidation order (D.I. 106, Mar. 18, 2025).

Bottom line for the defendant side: WilmerHale (Cavanaugh lead; Lantier, Stern, Cohen, Nemtzow, Smolenski, Hampton, Yin, Murphy supporting) as lead/PTAB/appellate counsel, Morris Nichols (Egan, Blumenfeld; Clark) as Delaware counsel, and no documented in‑house counsel of record — with the caveat that the Federal Circuit appearance list and the contents of the May 21, 2025 withdrawal notice remain unverified.

Record id: 10610675-2025-2113-2025-2114-2025-2121 · edit in Admin