I'll search for information on US Patent 11,766,286 and any related CAFC docket activity.

Let me search for the CAFC appeal docket and the patent's claims.

Let me retrieve the actual claims of the patent to identify the independent claims.

US Patent 11,766,286 B2 — Summary

Bibliographic Data (from Google Patents / USPTO-consistent records)

Abstract

"Methods and devices for treating nasal airways are provided. Such devices and methods may improve airflow through an internal and/or external nasal valve, and comprise the use of mechanical re-shaping, energy application and other treatments to modify the shape, structure, and/or air flow characteristics of an internal nasal valve, an external nasal valve or other nasal airways."

The specification describes devices/systems that reshape, remodel, strengthen, or change the properties of nasal tissues (skin, muscle, mucosa, submucosa, cartilage) around the nasal valves, using energy (RF, ultrasound, microwave, laser, light, heat, cold/cryo, DC current), mechanical reshaping (balloons, clamps, molds, stents, external strips), injectable polymers, or cauterizing agents — with temperature/impedance sensing and closed-loop control.

Independent Claims — Plain-Language Overview

Important caveat: The full claims text was not reproduced in the materials I could access (the provided patent text was truncated before the claims section), and my searches returned the specification but not the verbatim claim set. The claim numbering is confirmed by the IPR record (challenged claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9), which indicates claims 1 and 7 are the independent claims (with dependent claims 2–4 and 8–9). The overviews below are reconstructed from the specification's summary sections, which typically track claim language. Treat the precise wording as unverified.

• Claim 1 (independent) — A device for treating a patient's nasal airway, comprising: an elongate shaft (proximal and distal ends); a handle at the proximal end; and a treatment element at the distal end sized for insertion into the nasal airway or external delivery to the nose. The treatment element is configured to reshape a region of the nose to a new conformation and includes an electrode configured to deliver radiofrequency (RF) energy to nasal tissue. (Plainly: an RF-treating nasal reshaping instrument with a handle, shaft, and reshaping electrode tip.)

• Claim 7 (independent) — A method of treating a patient's nasal airway, involving: positioning a treatment element within the nasal airway adjacent to the tissue to be treated (the element having one or more electrodes); deforming the nasal tissue into a desired shape by pressing a surface of the treatment element against the tissue; and delivering RF energy to the electrode(s) to locally heat the tissue while it is deformed, causing the tissue to change shape. (Plainly: a "heat-and-hold" method that reshapes nasal tissue by pressing it into shape while applying RF energy.)

• Dependent claims 2–4 and 8–9 (per the IPR record) add limitations typical of this family, such as specifics of the electrode configuration, energy-delivery parameters (e.g., RF delivery times of ~15 seconds to ~1 minute, tissue heating to ~50°C–70°C), temperature sensing/adjustment, and treatment of tissue at or near the nasal valve or upper lateral cartilage. Exact text not verified.

• Additional independent claim concepts disclosed in the specification (whether they are separate claims in this patent I could not confirm): a method of reshaping tissue at/adjacent to a nasal valve by applying a treatment; methods involving delivering energy through an incision in mucosal tissue to submucosal tissue; methods of treating a nasal valve without surgical incision or implant using temperature feedback; and a device with a head portion for passage through a mucosal incision, a shaft, and a handle housing a power source. These appear in the "summary" of the specification and may correspond to claims in this or related family members — flag this as uncertain.

Litigation Status (USPTO/PTAB and CAFC 2026 dockets)

• IPR2024-00282 — Neurent Medical Inc. et al. v. Aerin Medical Inc., filed January 18, 2024 (instituted July 22, 2024). The PTAB's Final Written Decision (July 11, 2025) found all challenged claims (1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9) unpatentable as obvious (panel: Valek, Fitzpatrick, Yang). Status: Final Written Decision — Appealed.

• CAFC Appeal No. 25-2101 — Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd., docketed September 12, 2025 (notice of appeal filed by patent owner Aerin September 11, 2025). On September 23, 2025, the Federal Circuit consolidated cases 25-2099 (lead), 25-2100, and 25-2101 (appeals of the PTAB's invalidation of three Aerin nasal-airway patents). The certified list was received October 22–23, 2025. I have no docket entries after late October 2025 from my searches; briefing deadlines and any 2026 merits activity are not confirmed. Note: the Google Patents litigation link labels this the appeal of the same IPR.

Sources

• Google Patents (patents.google.com/patent/US11766286/en) — bibliographic data, abstract, description.
• Unified Patents portal (portal.unifiedpatents.com/patents/patent/11766286) and Patexia (patexia.com/us/patent/11766286) — metadata and abstract.
• IPR docket records (ipverse.greyb.com, docketalarm.com, services.patexia.com) — IPR2024-00282 procedural history and FWD (July 11, 2025).
• Justia Federal Circuit docket (dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-2101) — CAFC case 25-2101, filed September 12, 2025, consolidation order September 23, 2025, certified list October 23, 2025.
• News coverage (Bloomberg Law, July 14, 2025; Law360, July 15, 2025) — PTAB obviousness invalidation of claims across the three Aerin patents.

Uncertainty summary: (1) Exact claim text of US 11,766,286 was not verified — claim overviews are reconstructed from the specification and IPR records. (2) CAFC docket status is current only through October 23, 2025; no 2026 filings were found in my searches.

Based on my searches of the PTAB, D. Del., and Federal Circuit records (current through the search results retrieved today, April 26, 2026), here is the known litigation involving US Patent 11,766,286 B2 ("Methods and devices to treat nasal airways," assigned to Aerin Medical Inc.).

I found three related proceedings — one district court action (in which the '286 patent is one of eight asserted patents), one IPR, and one pending Federal Circuit appeal of that IPR. I found no standalone infringement suit or ITC proceeding naming only this patent, and no other district court cases.

1. District Court — Aerin Medical Inc. and The Foundry, LLC v. Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd.

Sources: Amended Complaint (D. Del. D.I. 17; copy filed as Ex. 1035 in IPR2024-00279); Joint Status Report (D. Del. 23-756 (JLH), reflecting the stay and asserted patent list including the '286 patent); CourtListener docket 67599357; Justia docket 1:2023cv00756.

2. IPR — Neurent Medical Inc. et al. v. Aerin Medical Inc. (IPR2024-00282)

Sources: IPVERS/GreyB IPR2024-00282 docket; Patexia service summary (listing "Appeal 2025-2101"); Ex Parte AI-Lab petition analysis.

3. Federal Circuit Appeal — Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Inc. and Neurent Medical Ltd.

Sources: Justia Federal Circuit docket (25-2101); Patexia summary (status "Pending").

Summary of key points

• The '286 patent is the subject of a stayed D. Del. infringement action (Aerin/Foundry v. Neurent, 1:23-cv-00756), where it is one of eight asserted patents.
• Neurent invalidated all nine asserted claims of the '286 patent in IPR2024-00282 (FWD July 11, 2025).
• Aerin has appealed that FWD to the Federal Circuit (25-2101, consolidated with 25-2099/25-2100), which is pending.
• Caveats: I found no evidence of any other litigation (e.g., additional district courts, ITC, or separate declaratory-judgment actions) naming patent 11,766,286 specifically. Docket data I could access for the district court and Federal Circuit cases ends in September–October 2025; the current April 2026 status of those dockets should be verified on PACER/CM-ECF.

I'll verify the PTAB proceedings and dig into the details, starting with several parallel searches.

The IPR is confirmed. Now let me verify the FWD details, the CAFC appeal status, and check for any other proceedings on this patent.

Proceedings overview

One AIA trial proceeding is confirmed on US 11,766,286 — IPR2024-00282 — and it went all the way to a Final Written Decision finding every challenged claim (1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9) unpatentable as obvious. That decision is currently on appeal to the Federal Circuit (No. 25-2101, consolidated with the appeals of two sibling Aerin patents), so the claims are not yet formally canceled — the certificate under 35 U.S.C. § 318(b) is stayed while the appeal is pending. There are no settled, active, or institution-denied proceedings on this patent.

⚠️ Data discrepancy — flag this: The structured "PTAB proceedings on file" block states the USPTO Open Data Portal API "returns no AIA trial proceedings for this patent as of the most recent ingest." That is stale — it conflicts with the previously-generated sections of this analysis and with live web records. The USPTO's own PTACTS record, the PTAB hearing transcript, and multiple independent docket services (Patexia, DocketAlarm, ipverse.greyb.com, UniCourt, Law360) all confirm IPR2024-00282 was filed, instituted, and decided on 2025-07-11. Per the operating rules, I treat the live search results as authoritative. The ODP ingest appears to be lagging for this patent.

IPR2024-00282 — Neurent Medical Inc. & Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc.

• Type: Inter Partes Review
• Filed: 2024-01-18
• Status: "Final Written Decision - Appealed" — i.e., the PTAB trial terminated on 2025-07-11 with an adverse FWD, and Patent Owner Aerin appealed to the Federal Circuit. Plain-English gloss: the Board killed every claim it reviewed, but the kill is not final while the CAFC appeal is pending.
• Judge panel: Michael A. Valek (panel member and author of the Final Written Decision), Michael J. Fitzpatrick, Zhenyu Yang
• Petition grounds: Claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, all under 35 U.S.C. § 103 (obviousness). Verified grounds from the petition analysis:
  • Ground I: Obvious over Edwards-'535 (US 6,517,535) in view of Stern (US 5,562,720) — claims 1–3 and 7–9.
  • Ground III: Obvious over Makower (US 2005/0240147) in view of Stern and Edwards-'535 — claims 1–4 and 7–9 (claim 4, the shape-memory-alloy dependent claim, was addressed under this ground).
  • Ground V: Obvious over Edwards-'535 in view of Stern and Liang — claims 1–3 and 7–9 (alternative ground tied to a "treat rhinitis" preamble construction).
  • The petition's numbering implies parallel alternative grounds (II, IV, VI) as well; I could not independently verify their exact scope, so treat that as unconfirmed.
• Institution decision: Instituted 2024-07-22 on the challenged claims. The FWD addresses all seven challenged claims, indicating the Board instituted review of the full set; I did not retrieve the institution decision's text itself, so I am not quoting its reasoning.
• Final Written Decision (2025-07-11): The Board entered judgment under 35 U.S.C. § 318(a) titled "Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable" — i.e., claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 were all held unpatentable; no challenged claim survived. The central fight (visible in the Patent Owner's Response and Petitioners' Reply) was claim construction of "multiple pairs of bipolar radiofrequency electrodes" and "multiple radiofrequency output channels" — Patent Owner argued the pairs/channels must be simultaneously active or directly wired to the generator; the Board rejected those readings and found Stern's circuitry satisfied the limitations even under the patent owner's own construction. The hearing was held 2025-04-23 as a consolidated oral argument with the two sibling Aerin-patent IPRs (IPR2024-00277 and IPR2024-00278). (I have the docket titles, exhibits, and the parties' briefs, but not the full FWD text, so the reasoning above is reconstructed from the record and should be verified against the opinion PDF.)
• Settlement / termination: No settlement — the case ran to judgment and terminated 2025-07-11.
• Appeal: Yes. Aerin filed its Notice of Appeal on 2025-09-11; the appeal was docketed at the Federal Circuit as Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al., No. 25-2101 on 2025-09-12. On 2025-09-23 the CAFC consolidated 25-2099 (lead), 25-2100, and 25-2101 (appeals of the PTAB's invalidation of all three Aerin nasal-airway patents). The certified list was received 2025-10-22/23. The Justia docket was last retrieved 2025-10-23 with no later entries; no briefing schedule, oral argument, or opinion as of my knowledge — the appeal is pending.
• Defensive value: Strong but not yet decisive. If the demand letter cites claims 1–4 or 7–9, the only IPR on this patent produced a Board decision that every one of those claims is unpatentable — and the same panel, same petitioner, and same day produced identical results on the two related Aerin patents. Because Aerin appealed, the claims are technically still in force, but a defendant can (a) move to stay any district court litigation pending the CAFC appeal, and (b) put the FWD in front of the court as highly persuasive authority — and, being outside Neurent's privity, raise the identical § 103 grounds without estoppel exposure (subject to the § 315(b) one-year IPR bar if you've been sued for over a year).

Sources: PTACTS (USPTO) proceeding documents; PTAB hearing transcript (IPR2024-00277/278/282 consolidated, 2025-04-23); Patexia case summary (IPR2024-00282); DocketAlarm case page; ipverse.greyb.com case details; UniCourt FWD entry; Law360 (2025-07-15, "PTAB Knocks Out Claims In 3 Nasal Airway Patents"); Justia CAFC docket 25-2101.

Strategic summary

Canceled vs. sustained vs. untested. No claim of US 11,766,286 has been finally canceled yet — the FWD's invalidity findings are on appeal. But at the PTAB level, claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, and 9 were all found unpatentable; zero challenged claims were sustained. The untested claims are those the petitioner never challenged: the record shows the petition targeted claims 1–4 and 7–9 only, which implies the patent has claims 5 and 6 (and any claims beyond 9) that were never before the Board and remain fully in force. I could not verify the patent's total claim count from the truncated record, so confirm the exact claim set before relying on this — but if Aerin asserts claims 5/6 or later-numbered claims against you, they are IPR-fresh and unprotected by this FWD.

Estoppel landscape. Section 315(e)(2) estoppel binds Neurent and its privies — Neurent cannot re-raise in the parallel Delaware case (Aerin v. Neurent, 1:23-cv-00756-JLH) the § 103 grounds it raised or reasonably could have raised in IPR2024-00282. It does not bind you as a new defendant. If you are sued on the '286 patent today, you may raise the same Edwards-'535/Stern/Makower combinations (or better art) in a new IPR — provided you file within one year of service under § 315(b) — and you can also assert those grounds as invalidity defenses in district court without any PTAB estoppel. The practical calculus: if the CAFC affirms, claims 1–4 and 7–9 die by certificate and the case collapses; if it reverses, the FWD is vacated and you start over — so the highest-value near-term move is a stay pending the appeal, not a new IPR on the same art.

Pattern signals. This is a coordinated, well-funded fight, not a one-off: Neurent filed three parallel IPRs on the same day (2024-01-18) against three Aerin family patents (IPR2024-00277 on US 11,241,271; IPR2024-00278 on US 11,033,318; IPR2024-00282 on US 11,766,286), the same three-judge panel heard them in a consolidated argument (2025-04-23), and all three FWDs landed on 2025-07-11 with the same "all challenged claims unpatentable" outcome. The appeals were consolidated at the CAFC (25-2099 lead, 25-2100, 25-2101), which means one CAFC decision likely resolves the validity of this entire family's asserted claims — a very favorable consolidation for a defendant. There is also cross-fire: Aerin itself filed IPR2025-01125 against Neurent's RhinAer patent, so this is reciprocal attrition between competitors (with Aerin's patents now held by an Ares Capital security-interest collateral arrangement per the assignment record).

Recommended next steps

1. Pull the FWD PDF now. The disposition is captioned "JUDGMENT — Final Written Decision Determining All Challenged Claims Unpatentable 35 U.S.C. § 318(a)" (2025-07-11). Retrieve it from the USPTO PTAB decisions portal (PTAB E2E / PTACTS, proceeding IPR2024-00282, paper 38 per the docket listing) or UniCourt's copy. Quote the claim-by-claim analysis in any stay motion — every asserted claim (1–4, 7–9) is covered.
2. If you are in active litigation on this patent: file a motion to stay pending the CAFC appeal (consolidated Nos. 25-2099/25-2100/25-2101). If the CAFC affirms, the certificate of cancellation under § 318(b) issues and claims 1–4 and 7–9 are gone — any infringement theory built on them becomes sanction-bait.
3. If the patent is asserted against you and you are within the § 315(b) window (one year from service), the window to file your own IPR is closing or closed — check the service date. Given the FWD, a second IPR on the same art is wasteful; the better play is joining/benefiting from the pending appeal and saving your IPR budget for the untested claims (5, 6, and any beyond 9) if Aerin pivots to those.
4. Track the CAFC docket (Justia: dockets.justia.com/docket/circuit-courts/cafc/25-2101). Briefing deadlines run from service of the certified list (received 2025-10-22/23) under Fed. Cir. R. 31(a) — approximately 60 days for a PTAB appeal — but no briefs had been docketed as of the last retrieval (2025-10-23), so verify the actual schedule before assuming deadlines.

Bottom line: The patent has been through exactly one IPR, and that IPR invalidated every claim it touched (1–4, 7–9) at the Board level. The patent is not "hardened" — it is wounded and on appeal, with only the untested claims (5, 6, and beyond) as the patent owner's remaining ammunition. If your demand letter cites claims 1–4 or 7–9, the PTAB has already held those claims obvious, and the only thing standing between you and a canceled claim set is the CAFC's disposition of a consolidated appeal in which the Board's record is strong.

Inventors

• Scott J. Wolf — Co-founder/CEO of Aerin Medical Inc. at time of filing (and currently). Remains actively involved: he was deposed in IPR2024-00282 (Wolf podcast episode submitted as an exhibit; deposition notices and testimony in the PTAB record through late 2024), and he appears as an inventor on later Aerin filings (e.g., US 12,636,073 B2, "Soft palate treatment," granted 2026).
• Andrew Frazier — Co-founder of Aerin Medical Inc. Named as assignor together with Wolf on the recorded assignments. Also appears as inventor on later Aerin filings (US 12,636,073 B2).

Pattern check: Not a "departure-then-fire-sale" pattern. Both inventors are founders of the original assignee and remain associated with it years after the 2011–2012 priority filings; there is no indication either left the company within 12 months of filing or that a portfolio sale followed their departure.

Original assignee

• Entity named on the issued patent: Aerin Medical Inc. (a.k.a. Aerin Medical, Inc.), Sunnyvale, CA–area medical-device company.
• Product embodying the claims: Yes. Aerin markets the RhinAer® device (RF-based treatment for nasal conditions; FDA 510(k)-cleared). Litigation documents confirm Aerin marks RhinAer with its patent numbers and that Neurent's Neuromark system was cleared as substantially equivalent to Aerin's RhinAer (RPX litigation document, U.S. Patent No. 11,033,318 file — "Aerin identified Aerin's RhinAer as a predicate device substantially equivalent to the Neuromark system"; "Aerin marks the RhinAer with its patent numbers, including the '597, '194, and '318 patents").
• Primary line of business: Developer and manufacturer of non-invasive nasal treatment solutions (per Ares Capital Corporation's 2024 annual report portfolio listing).
• Current status: Operating, privately held. Financially active: secured a first lien senior secured loan from Ares Capital Corporation (12/2024, maturity 12/2030, ~$13.1M principal) plus Series G preferred financing — per Ares Capital's consolidated schedule of investments as of December 31, 2024. Also defending its patent portfolio (IPR2024-00282, appeal at the CAFC, case 25-2101). Holds ~59 granted US patents (USPTO PatentsView via PlainPatent).

Assignment timeline

I could not retrieve the USPTO Assignment Center records directly in this session (the database at assignmentcenter.uspto.gov / assignment.uspto.gov was not reachable via my search tools), so reel/frame numbers and correspondent names are not verified. The timeline below is reconstructed from Google Patents' legal-event feed for US 11766286, which tracks USPTO reassignment records, and from Ares Capital's SEC filings. Treat reel/frame and correspondent fields as not retrieved, not as "no record."

• 2021-05-21 (recorded) — reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Andrew Frazier; Scott J. Wolf
  • Assignee: Aerin Medical, Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Standard inventor-to-company assignment recorded on the filing date of the continuation application (US 17/327,254) that issued as this patent. Two near-identical records appear on this date (assignor order reversed), consistent with separate recordation for the continuation chain.

• 2021-05-21 (recorded) — reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: Scott J. Wolf; Andrew Frazier
  • Assignee: Aerin Medical Inc.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Same-day duplicate/companion recordation of the inventor assignment (see above).

• 2024-12-20 (recorded) — reel/frame not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (not a transfer of title)
  • Assignor: Aerin Medical Inc.
  • Assignee: Ares Capital Corporation, as Administrative Agent and Collateral Agent
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Collateral grant securing Aerin's first lien senior secured loan from Ares Capital (12/2024, maturity 12/2030), consistent with Ares Capital Corporation's 2024 annual report listing Aerin Medical as a portfolio company with a first lien senior secured loan acquired 12/2024. This is a financing/security filing, not an ownership transfer.

Chain terminates at Aerin Medical Inc. (subject only to Ares Capital's security interest). No post-issuance assignment of title to any other entity is recorded on the Google Patents feed for this patent. Per the assignment analysis protocol: for many patents the absence of post-issuance assignments means the original assignee still owns the patent — that is the case here.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11766286
    2011 : Priority application filed
    2012 : Parent filed by Aerin
    2021 : Inventors assign to Aerin Medical
    2023 : Patent issued to Aerin Medical
    2024 : Ares Capital security interest
         : IPR filed by Neurent
    2025 : PTAB invalidates claims
         : CAFC appeal filed

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. The only post-issuance recorded event is a Security Interest to Ares Capital Corporation, a publicly traded business development company (NYSE: ARCC) acting as lender/collateral agent. No IP-holding LLC, no registered-agent address, no licensing-only entity in the chain. Aerin ships the RhinAer product.

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No Acacia, Marathon, Intellectual Ventures, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Round Rock, Spangenberg entity, or any Unified Patents/RPX-listed high-frequency plaintiff appears as assignee. Ares Capital is a regulated BDC, not a patent asserter. The only asserters of this patent family are the operating companies themselves (Aerin asserting/defending against Neurent).

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. Correspondent names could not be retrieved from the Assignment Center this session. One data point: Aerin's prosecution counsel of record on later family patents is Greenberg Traurig, LLP (per PatentGuru records for US 12,636,073), but no assignment-correspondent recurrence can be confirmed without the reel/frame records.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Exactly three recorded events, all on two dates: two inventor-to-Aerin assignments (2021-05-21) and one security interest (2024-12-20). No chained LLCs, no <24-month cascade.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present in the NPE sense. The 2021 assignments predate the 2024 IPR and any assertion by more than two years and were ordinary inventor-to-employer assignments on filing. The 2024-12-20 Ares security interest postdates the IPR filing (January 2024) and is a debt-financing collateral grant, not an arrangement-to-assert transfer.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. Aerin is operating and was able to secure new senior secured debt in December 2024 (per Ares Capital's 2024 10-K schedule). No Chapter 7/11, no trustee sale.

7. Privateering — not present / no evidence. No SEC filing or press coverage suggests Aerin transferred rights to an NPE to assert against competitors on its behalf. Aerin appears as patent owner and respondent/appellant in its own name in the IPR and CAFC appeal.

8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — not present. The chain does not terminate at RPX, AST, LOT, Unified Patents, or OIN. It terminates at Aerin Medical (operating company), with Ares Capital holding only a security interest.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

Aerin Medical Inc. — the current owner — ships a commercial product (RhinAer) that it marks with this patent family's numbers, is a manufacturer/developer of non-invasive nasal treatments per Ares Capital's SEC-filed portfolio description, and is engaged in litigation against Neurent Medical, a direct competitor in the same RF rhinitis-treatment space (Neurent's Neuromark was FDA-cleared as substantially equivalent to RhinAer). The only non-inventor assignment on record is a December 20, 2024 Security Interest to Ares Capital Corporation reflecting a first lien senior secured loan — a financing collateral filing, not an NPE transfer, and it does not change the operating-company character of the chain.

Caveat: reel/frame numbers and correspondent names could not be independently pulled from the USPTO Assignment Center in this session; the timeline rests on Google Patents' reassignment event feed and Ares Capital's 2024 annual report. Verification link: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 11766286 or application 17/327,254).

Obviousness Analysis — U.S. Patent 11,766,286 B2 ("Methods and Devices to Treat Nasal Airways")

Preliminary note on sources

The page provided to me did not include a dedicated "Prior Art" section, so I have used the prior-art record developed in IPR2024-00282 (Neurent Medical Inc. et al. v. Aerin Medical Inc.) — the proceeding in which all nine asserted claims (1–4, 7–9) of the '286 patent were challenged and ultimately invalidated as obvious. That IPR record is the most authoritative available statement of which references a skilled challenger actually deployed against these claims, and the PTAB's Final Written Decision (FWD, July 11, 2025) adopted those combinations. One correction to the previously generated sections: the IPR record shows claim 7 is a system claim (reciting "a radiofrequency generator configured to deliver radiofrequency energy separately to each of the multiple radiofrequency output channels" and "a cable coupled to the handle for plugging the handle into the radiofrequency generator"), not a method claim as the earlier "Patent summary" section tentatively reconstructed. The exact full text of the claims was not verifiable from my searches; the claim-feature characterizations below are drawn from the IPR petition, reply, and FWD record.

1. Legal framework

Obviousness under 35 U.S.C. § 103 asks whether the claimed subject matter as a whole would have been obvious at the time of invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art (POSITA), applying the Graham factors: (1) scope and content of the prior art; (2) differences between the prior art and the claims; (3) level of ordinary skill; and (4) secondary considerations. Under KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007), a combination of known elements is obvious when it yields predictable results and a POSITA had a reason to combine them — including combining prior-art references to fill a known gap, applying a known technique to a known device "ready for improvement," and choosing among a finite number of identified, predictable solutions. This is precisely the reasoning the PTAB applied in IPR2024-00282.

2. Claims in issue (as characterized in the IPR record)

• Claim 1 (independent, device): A nasal-airway treatment device comprising a handle, a shaft, and a treatment element, the treatment element carrying multiple pairs of bipolar radiofrequency (RF) electrodes, the device further comprising multiple RF output channels, wherein each pair of bipolar RF electrodes is connected with a respective one of the multiple RF output channels, and (per the Ex Parte case summary) an impedance sensor.
• Claim 2 (dependent): The treatment element comprises multiple segments.
• Claim 3 (dependent): At least one electrode of the multiple pairs is coupled with each of the multiple segments.
• Claim 4 (dependent): At least one pair of the multiple pairs is coupled with each of the multiple segments (the IPR record shows the petition relied on Stern's segmented expandable bladder / strut-mounted electrode pairs for this limitation).
• Claim 7 (independent, system): The device plus a radiofrequency generator configured to deliver RF energy separately to each of the multiple RF output channels, and a cable coupled to the handle for plugging the handle into the RF generator.
• Claims 8–9 (dependent): Details not fully verified from my searches; the petition addressed them through the same references (per the FWD record, all challenged claims fell).

The claim concepts of "at least temporarily deforming nasal tissue" and "improving airflow" recited in the specification's summary are consistent with the family-wide claim language (see related family member US 9,687,296) and were treated by the Board as satisfied by the expandable-member prior-art devices.

3. The prior-art references

Other exhibits in the IPR2024-00282 docket (e.g., Hovda '655, Edwards '886, Baker '788, Chen, Fang) appear in the record, but the grounds I could confirm from the petition analysis are Grounds I, III, and V described below. I could not verify whether the petition included additional grounds (II, IV, VI) for the '286 patent; the combination analysis below covers the confirmed grounds.

4. Combinations that render the claims obvious

Ground I — Edwards-'535 in view of Stern (claims 1–3, 7–9)

Claim mapping:

• Edwards-'535 supplies the nasal context (turbinate ablation to improve airflow through a nasal meatus), the expandable treatment element, the bipolar RF electrodes on the expandable surface, the impedance sensor, and the stated design goals of independent and bipolar energy delivery — but not the implementation.
• Stern supplies the missing implementation: multiple pairs of bipolar RF electrodes, a switching mechanism connecting each pair to its own RF output channel for selective and independent energy delivery (Fig. 15), the segmented expandable member (claim 2), electrodes coupled to each segment (claim 3), and — for claim 7 — the RF generator with separate energy delivery per channel and the associated cabling/control architecture.
• The Board credited the petitioner's expert (Dr. Martin) that Stern's Figure 15 shows distinct output channels connecting the generator output to each respective bipolar pair, satisfying claim 1's "each pair … connected with a respective one of the multiple radiofrequency output channels" under its plain meaning.

Motivation to combine: Edwards-'535 itself articulates the goals of bipolar and independent energy delivery but omits the design details — i.e., it is a known device "ready for improvement." A POSITA facing that gap would have had a finite number of choices: multiple RF generators (one per electrode pair) or a single generator with a switch/relay bank (Stern's approach). The single-generator approach is safer (fewer components, consistent output), more practical (space constraints in a nasal instrument), more reliable (fewer failure modes), and simpler/cheaper. Stern is the natural source because it provides detailed schematics for exactly this architecture and expressly identifies the benefits — precise current-path control, even heating of heterogeneous tissue, protection of surrounding tissue, and selective ablation across an entire surface — benefits that map directly onto Edwards-'535's goal of maintaining tissue "at a desired temperature" with local precision.

Ground III — Makower in view of Stern and Edwards-'535 (claims 1–4, 7–9)

Claim mapping: Makower supplies an even closer nasal-passageway electrosurgical device with an expandable treatment element and multiple bipolar electrodes. Stern supplies the independent bipolar-pair control architecture (as in Ground I). Edwards-'535 is added to supply the impedance sensor for feedback control — a feature neither Makower nor Stern teaches.

Motivation to combine: Same core motivation as Ground I (Stern's known control circuitry applied to a nasal device ready for improvement, yielding predictable results). The additional motivation for adding Edwards-'535's impedance sensing is the known, predictable benefit of monitoring tissue desiccation, verifying electrode-tissue contact, and controlling the treatment endpoint — advantageous in any RF ablation system, and particularly in the confined, sensitive nasal cavity. This ground covers claim 4 because the petition mapped Makower's strut-mounted electrodes (with at least one pair coupled to each strut/segment) combined with Stern's segmented expandable-member teaching.

Ground V — Edwards-'535 in view of Stern and Liang (claims 1–3, 7–9)

Claim mapping: The Edwards-'535 + Stern combination supplies all structural limitations (as in Ground I). Liang is added to supply an explicit therapeutic method — RF treatment of rhinitis in the nasal cavity (middle turbinate) — relevant if the preamble "to treat rhinitis"-type language were deemed limiting.

Motivation to combine: Liang independently demonstrates that RF energy works in the nose for rhinitis, but reports adverse effects such as bleeding/bloody secretions. That side-effect profile directly motivates adopting the less-damaging, surface-cooled, controlled RF device of Edwards-'535 as modified by Stern to perform Liang's procedure — a classic improvement combination with a strong reason to combine and a reasonable expectation of success.

5. Why a POSITA would combine — consolidated rationale

1. Analogous art. All references are in the same field (RF tissue ablation via expandable devices with surface electrodes in body cavities) and reasonably pertinent to the problem addressed by the '286 patent (treating tissue in the nasal airway). Edwards-'535 is itself a nasal/turbinate device; Makower is a nasal device; Stern is the same type of expandable, surface-electrode RF device used in another body cavity (uterus), and the record shows a POSITA would readily look to it for electrode-pairing and control details.
2. Known device, known technique, predictable result. The combination is not a leap — it applies Stern's documented electrode-pairing/switch-bank technique to devices (Edwards-'535, Makower) that were structurally ready and expressly contemplated independent and bipolar delivery without detailing the implementation. Under KSR, that is the paradigm of obviousness: filling in a known gap with a known solution from a finite set of options.
3. Identified, concrete benefits. The record identifies specific benefits that motivate the combination: improved safety (controlled current return path, no unintended ablation of adjacent tissue), even heating despite non-uniform tissue morphology, selective treatment of an entire surface via multiple independently controlled pairs, and temperature/impedance-based endpoint control. These benefits are particularly compelling in the confined nasal cavity.
4. Reasonable expectation of success. Both Edwards-'535 and Stern (and Makower) describe similar expandable devices delivering bipolar RF to mucosal tissue of body cavities; the expert testified that wiring bipolar pairs to individual output channels is a "well understood and predictable aspect of designing electrosurgical devices." The Board credited this testimony.
5. No credible secondary considerations overcoming the case. The FWD found all challenged claims unpatentable despite Aerin's arguments (e.g., that Stern's pairs are not active "at the same time"; that Stern has only "a single RF output channel"). The Board rejected those as importing unrecited limitations and inconsistent with the '286 specification itself, which discloses activating pairs separately and describes "channels" as connections to electrodes.

6. Outcome and current status (as of April 26, 2026)

• IPR2024-00282 FWD (July 11, 2025): All challenged claims 1, 2, 3, 4, 7, 8, 9 of US 11,766,286 held unpatentable as obvious under § 103 (panel: Valek, Fitzpatrick, Yang).
• On appeal: Aerin's appeal is pending at the Federal Circuit as Case No. 25-2101, consolidated with 25-2099 (lead) and 25-2100 (the parallel appeals of the PTAB's invalidation of three Aerin nasal-airway patents). No docket entries after late October 2025 were available in my searches, so the briefing schedule and any 2026 merits activity are unconfirmed.
• District court: The parallel D. Del. infringement action (Aerin/Foundry v. Neurent, 1:23-cv-00756) is stayed as to the Aerin patents pending the IPR appeals.

7. Caveats

• The verbatim claim text of the '286 patent was not retrievable from my searches; the feature mapping above follows the IPR petition/reply/FWD's characterization. If any claim feature differs from that characterization, the mapping would need adjustment.
• I confirmed three grounds (I, III, V); the petition may have asserted additional grounds (the docket lists other exhibits such as Hovda '655, Edwards '886, Baker '788, Chen, and Fang), but I could not verify those grounds' scope for this patent before reaching my search limit.
• The CAFC appeal (25-2101) could still reverse the FWD; the obviousness conclusions above reflect the PTAB's final decision as the current ground truth, not a prediction of the appeal's outcome.

Bottom line: The claims of US 11,766,286 are obvious under § 103 over (a) Edwards-'535 + Stern (claims 1–3, 7–9), (b) Makower + Stern + Edwards-'535 (claims 1–4, 7–9), and (c) Edwards-'535 + Stern + Liang (claims 1–3, 7–9), because the base nasal RF devices (Edwards-'535, Makower) disclosed every element except the independent bipolar-pair output-channel control architecture, which Stern disclosed in detail for the identical type of expandable surface-electrode RF device, with an express and well-documented motivation (safety, even heating, selective control) and a reasonable expectation of routine success — the combination the PTAB adopted in invalidating all nine challenged claims.