US 9687296

I'll research this patent across the sources you specified.

Let me pull the claims/abstract and check the litigation dockets specifically for this patent number.

US Patent 9,687,296 — Summary

Important framing note: I searched for the exact identifier 9687296 / 9,687,296. I found no record of this patent appearing in any Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit docket in 2026, and none in the Aerin/Neurent PTAB or district-court matters as an asserted patent. Details below. Where I could not verify something authoritatively, I say so explicitly rather than fill it in.

1. Bibliographic data (as shown on the authoritative patent document)

Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US9687296/en

Family / priority chain (as listed on the patent record): the '296 patent claims priority from application US 14/026,922 (filed 2013-09-13), now US 8,986,301 B2. The 2011-06-14 date ties it to Aerin's broad nasal-airway family (e.g., US 9,072,597; 9,179,967; 9,179,964; 9,433,463; 10,561,486; 10,456,185; 10,470,814; 11,241,271; 10,984,853; 10,779,873; 12,053,227, etc.). The '296 grant also appears in the "Priority to" chain for later Aerin filings (e.g., US 15/596,455 → US 10,398,489).

⚠️ Caveat on search-engine noise: several web-search snippets pair the token "US9687296B2" with unrelated titles (e.g., a cryogenic/high-frequency-pressure-wave ablation document, or "Uvula, tonsil, adenoid and sinus tissue treatment device and method"). Those are citation-table cross-listings of the '296 family, not the '296 patent's own title. The authoritative title on the face of the patent is "Devices to treat nasal airways."

2. Abstract

The patent's abstract, as indexed (and consistent with the description text in the patent itself), states:

"A device is described for treating a nasal airway by modifying a property of a nasal tissue of or near a nasal valve of the airway, without using a surgical incision or an implant, to decrease airflow resistance or perceived airflow resistance in the nasal airway. Various embodiments include an elongate shaft, a bipolar radiofrequency delivery member extending from one end of the shaft, and a handle attached to the elongate shaft at an opposite end from the radiofrequency delivery member. The radiofrequency delivery member is sized to be inserted into a nose and configured to at least temporarily deform the nasal tissue and deliver radiofrequency energy. The radiofrequency delivery member includes two rows of protruding electrodes disposed on a tissue contact surface, and the device is configured to deliver radiofrequency energy from one row of electrodes to the other row of electrodes."

3. Plain-language overview of the independent claim(s)

Uncertainty disclosure: I was able to verify the text of claim 1 and several dependent claims (2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9), but I could not retrieve the complete claim set for this patent, so I cannot state with confidence how many claims it contains or whether there is more than one independent claim. What follows is a plain-language reading of the verified claim 1, which is a device claim.

Claim 1 (independent, device claim) — plain language:
A handheld device for treating the nasal airway that works by changing a property of nasal tissue at or near a nasal valve without making a surgical incision and without implanting anything, in order to reduce (actual or perceived) airflow resistance. The device comprises:

1. an elongate shaft;
2. a treatment element at/near the distal end of the shaft;
3. one or more "wings" (positioning/guard features — dependent claims say these keep the treatment element from contacting tissue the user doesn't want to treat, and may be adjustable or expandable);
4. the treatment element is sized to fit into a nostril, is configured to at least temporarily deform the nasal tissue, and to deliver radiofrequency (RF) energy to modify the tissue's property; and
5. the treatment element itself has:
   • a tissue-contact surface shaped to deform the tissue into a desired shape (dependent claim 2: flat, convex or concave; claim 3: the shape is adjustable), and
   • a bipolar electrode pair disposed on that contact surface.

Verified dependent-claim concepts:

• Claim 2: contact-surface shape is flat, convex, or concave.
• Claim 3: the contact-surface shape is adjustable.
• Claim 5: the elongate shaft is flexible, so the user can bend it to set an angle.
• Claims 6, 8, 9: the wing(s) block treatment of unintended tissue; wings are adjustable; wings are expandable.

Core inventive concept in plain terms: rather than surgically grafting/spreading the nasal valve or implanting a stent, the clinician inserts a shaped, RF-emitting tip into the nostril, physically presses/deforms the nasal valve tissue into a more open geometry, and simultaneously applies bipolar RF energy to heat the tissue (spec elsewhere describes ~50–70 °C for ~15 seconds to ~1 minute) so the reshaped tissue "sets" as it heals — improving airflow.

4. Litigation / PTAB / CAFC status — what I actually found

No 2026 CAFC docket entry for 9,687,296. My search of CAFC 2026 activity returned one Aerin-related 2026 order, which does not involve the '296 patent:

• Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Inc., Nos. 2025-2099, 2025-2100, 2025-2101 and The Foundry, LLC, Nos. 2025-2113, 2025-2114, 2025-2121 — appeals from PTAB IPR2024-00277, -00278, -00282 (patents 11,241,271; 11,033,318; 11,766,286) and IPR2024-00279, -00280, -00669 (patents 10,610,675; 10,894,011; 11,679,077). Dismissed by order dated August 27, 2026 under Fed. R. App. P. 42(b), each side bearing its own costs.
  • https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/opinions-orders/25-2099.ORDER.8-27-2026_2746255.pdf
  • https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/2026/08/27/

District court: Aerin Medical Inc. et al. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al., No. 1:23-cv-00756-JLH (D. Del.) — Aerin and The Foundry asserted eight patents (including 11,241,271; 11,033,318; 11,766,286; 10,610,675; 10,894,011; 11,679,077). Neurent counter-counter-sued on its later patents (12,096,973; 12,096,974; 12,089,889; 11,998,262). 9,687,296 was not among the asserted patents in that case.

How '296 does appear in these proceedings: only as prior-art/background art cited by Neurent during prosecution of its own U.S. Patent No. 11,547,473 — Neurent's IDS listed US 9,687,296 alongside 8,936,594; 8,986,301; 9,197,964; 9,179,967; 9,433,463; 9,452,010; 9,486,278; 9,788,886; 9,801,752; 10,335,221; and 10,389,489.

IPR status of '296: I found no IPR/PGR petition challenging 9,687,296 in the record sets I retrieved.

So: the patent record itself carries a "Family has litigation" flag pointing to the Darts-IP family 46321506 dataset, and the family is unquestionably in active litigation (Aerin v. Neurent, D. Del. 1:23-cv-00756, with a Markman hearing scheduled May 28, 2026 and trial set for August 23, 2027 per the parties' briefing). But I have no authoritative evidence that 9,687,296 itself is asserted in any 2026 case, and I explicitly could not confirm any CAFC 2026 involvement.

5. Explicit uncertainty list

1. Claim set completeness — I verified claim 1 and claims 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 9, but not the total claim count or whether additional independent claims exist. Treat the "independent claim overview" as covering claim 1 only.
2. Abstract wording — the abstract text above comes from an indexed secondary source that matches the patent's own specification language; I did not retrieve the abstract block directly from the granted front page in this session.
3. Priority chain — the record shows priority from US 14/026,922 (2013-09-13, now US 8,986,301) with an earliest priority date of 2011-06-14; Google Patents labels these as assumptions, not legal conclusions. I did not independently verify the 2011 provisional application number.
4. Litigation scope — the "family has litigation" flag refers to a family-level dataset; absence of '296 from the asserted-patent lists I retrieved is my finding from those documents, not proof that '296 has never been litigated in some other forum.
5. No auto-correction applied. All identifiers above are reproduced exactly as found. I did not encounter any live-web result that contradicted the patent text you supplied, so the patent text remains the primary basis for this summary.

I'll search multiple sources for litigation involving US Patent 9,687,296.

Let me dig deeper into the Aerin v. Neurent case and verify which patents are asserted.

Let me get the full list of patents asserted in the Aerin v. Neurent complaint.

Short answer

I could not confirm any lawsuit in which U.S. Patent No. 9,687,296 ("Devices to treat nasal airways," Aerin Medical Inc., filed 2016‑08‑26, granted 2017‑06‑27) is named as an asserted patent‑in‑suit. The '296 patent does appear in the record of a large Aerin/Neurent dispute — but as a family member cited by Neurent to the USPTO during prosecution, not as an asserted claim. I also found no CAFC appeal, ITC action, or PACER case specifically docketing the '296 patent.

Per your strict rule, I am reporting the identifiers exactly as they appear in the sources, and I am not substituting a nearby number for '296.

What I did find

1. The Aerin ↔ Neurent district court litigation (the "family" litigation on the '296 Google Patents page)

The Google Patents page for US9687296B2 carries the banner "Family has litigation – First worldwide family litigation filed," linking to Darts‑IP family 46321506. That flag is family‑level, not patent‑level: it attaches to the whole 2011‑06‑14 priority family (which includes US 9,072,597; 9,415,194; 9,687,296; 10,456,185; 11,241,271; 11,033,318; etc.), so it does not by itself prove the '296 patent was ever asserted.

The underlying case is:

Where '296 shows up in that case: the First Amended Complaint's ¶42 (asserting willful infringement / knowledge) states that during prosecution of Neurent's U.S. Patent No. 11,547,473, "Neurent cited patents and applications related to the '597, '194, '271, and '318 patents, including U.S. Patent Nos. 8,936,594; 8,986,301; 9,197,964; 9,179,967; 9,433,463; 9,452,010; 9,486,278; 9,687,296; 9,788,886; 9,801,752; 10,335,221; and 10,389,489." That is a citation/knowledge allegation about a family of patents (relevant to willfulness and to the "copied family" narrative) — not an infringement count on the '296 patent.

Source: https://insight.rpxcorp.com/litigation_documents/15289625 (Aerin/Foundry complaint, ¶¶25–32 and ¶42) and the Google Patents litigation banner at https://patents.google.com/patent/[US9687296](/patent/US9687296)/en

2. The mirror‑image case (Neurent as plaintiff)

'296 is not among the asserted patents here either.

Source: Neurent's Mandatory Notices, IPR2025‑01125 (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1558030](/patent/1558030)/) and D.I. 81/D.I. 94 in 1:23‑cv‑00756‑JLH.

3. Related PTAB proceedings (not "litigation" strictly, but probative of what is in suit)

• Neurent as petitioner against Aerin: IPR2024‑00277 ('271), ‑00278 ('318), ‑00279 ('675), ‑00280 ('011), ‑00282 ('286), ‑00669 ('077), plus ‑00275 and ‑00276. Consolidated oral hearing held Apr. 23, 2025. IPR2024‑00278 terminated July 11, 2025 with a Final Written Decision; Patent Owner's Notice of Appeal filed Sept. 11, 2025 (this is the '318 patent, not '296).
• Aerin as petitioner against Neurent: IPR2025‑01124 ('262), ‑01125 ('889), ‑01126 ('973), ‑01127 ('974).
• No IPR petition against U.S. 9,687,296 was found.

Sources: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00278/ ; https://ai-lab.exparte.com/case/ptab/IPR2025-01127/doc/1006 ; IPR2025‑01125 petition papers (Aerin, Greenberg Traurig)

Bottom line

• Litigation directly asserting US 9,687,296: none identified. The patent appears in litigation documents only as a member of the Aerin nasal‑airway patent family cited during prosecution of Neurent's U.S. 11,547,473, and as a family‑level Darts‑IP litigation flag.
• Litigation involving the '296 patent's family: yes — Aerin Medical Inc. et al. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al., 1:23‑cv‑00756‑JLH (D. Del., filed Jul. 11, 2023), plus the consolidated Neurent Medical Ltd. v. Aerin Medical Inc., 1:24‑cv‑01070‑JLH, and the parallel IPR campaigns at the PTAB.
• Caveat: Docket coverage of D. Del. and PTAB can lag, and the '296 patent could in principle have been added by later amendment, a supplemental infringement contention, or a separate complaint I did not surface. I could not verify the complete eight‑patent list in the original Complaint (D.I. 1) against a primary source in one pass — the '597, '194, '675, '011, '318 and '271 are confirmed by the complaint excerpts I retrieved, and '286 and '077 are inferred from the Neurent‑filed IPR set (‑00282 and ‑00669). I have not verified that the '296 patent was excluded from the complaint by direct inspection of D.I. 1, and I would not represent it as settled without pulling that document and the final infringement contentions. If you need a court‑admissible list, the authoritative sources to pull are PACER for 1:23‑cv‑00756‑JLH (D.I. 1, D.I. 40, and the consolidated scheduling order at D.I. 107) and the Darts‑IP family 46321506 record.

I'll verify the structured data against live sources before writing anything.

The structured block is consistent so far — none of the Neurent IPRs I've surfaced name the '296 patent. Let me confirm that directly and check for any third-party challenge.

Key finding emerging: none of the Neurent IPRs list the '296 patent. Let me pin down the remaining case numbers and search specifically for any challenge to '296.

PTAB Proceedings — US 9,687,296 ("Devices to treat nasal airways," Aerin Medical Inc.)

Bottom line up front: The USPTO Open Data Portal returns zero AIA trial proceedings naming US 9,687,296. I independently searched for a petition, FWD, or appeal touching the '296 patent and found none. The patent is, on the PTAB record, untested. That is a materially different posture from its family siblings, eight of which were hit with IPRs in January 2024.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on US 9,687,296: 0. There is no IPR, PGR, or CBM naming this patent — no institution, no denial, no settlement, no FWD, no appeal. Breakdown by status is therefore: 0 active / 0 claims invalidated / 0 claims sustained / 0 settled / 0 institution denied.

The defensive posture this creates is unusual and cuts genuinely both ways. Unlike the pending claims of the '271, '318, '597 and '194 patents — which Neurent Medical has already put through the PTAB wringer with substantial success — no claim of the '296 patent has ever been construed by the Board, cancelled by the Board, or held patentable by the Board. If a demand letter cites the '296 patent, it is citing an untested, un-narrowed asset. But it also means there are no free claim cancellations to hand you — you cannot point to a FWD and tell opposing counsel the asserted claims are already dead. Every validity argument on '296 is a fresh fight.

The closest thing to signal: the '296 patent was skipped

The '296 patent shares the June 14, 2011 priority date, the same inventors (Wolf and Frazier), and the same specification lineage as the patents Neurent Medical successfully attacked. The IPRs Neurent filed on 2024-01-18 were plainly a coordinated campaign against the Aerin/The Foundry patents asserted in Aerin Medical Inc. v. Neurent Medical Inc., No. 1:23-cv-00756-JLH (D. Del.) — and the '296 patent is not on that list. I did not verify the full asserted-patent schedule in Delaware, so I state this carefully: on the IPR record, the '296 patent was neither challenged nor, by inference, worth challenging in Neurent's view.

Family-adjacent proceedings (NOT on the '296 patent — context only)

I list these because a defendant assessing the '296 patent needs the campaign picture. None of these proceedings is against US 9,687,296, and no claim-level outcome in them binds or estops anything as to '296.

All petitioners: Neurent Medical Inc. & Neurent Medical Ltd. Patent Owner: Aerin Medical Inc. (with The Foundry LLC as co-plaintiff/licensor on several). Aerin's counsel: Finnegan. Neurent's counsel: Greenberg Traurig (Briggs, Ward, Araj, Stone-Murphy).

Corroborating sources:

• IPR2024-00275: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00275/NEURENT_MEDICAL_INC._v._Aerin_Medical_Inc/
• IPR2024-00276: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00276/Neurent_Medical_Inc._v._Aerin_Medical_Inc/
• IPR2024-00278: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00278/Neurent_Medical_Inc._v._Aerin_Medical_Inc/
• IPR2024-00277 institution decision: https://www.docketalarm.com/cases/PTAB/IPR2024-00277/NEURENT_MEDICAL_INC._v._Aerin_Medical_Inc/docs/07-22-2024-Board/Institution_Decision__Grant-9-Institution_Decision__DECISION_Granting_Institution_of_Inter_Partes_Review_35_USC_%C2%A7_314.pdf
• Law360 case page (IPR2024-00275/276 cluster): https://www.law360.co.uk/ptab_cases/65aa541ebe0cd80022e7a8e5
• Finnegan matter page: https://www.finnegan.com/en/work/experience/aerin-medical-inc-et-al-v-neurent-medical-inc-et-al-123-cv-00756-d-del.html
• USPTO PTAB E2E (for docket-level verification): https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/

What I could NOT verify (stated plainly rather than guessed): the exact claim-by-claim disposition in the IPR2024-00278 FWD of 2025-07-11; the FWD outcomes in IPR2024-00277, -00279, -00280, -00282, and -00669; and the Federal Circuit docket number(s) for the appeal(s). Law360 reported on 2025-07-15 that the Board "invalidated a host of claims across a trio of nasal airway treatment patents" — I cannot from the available record match that trio to specific claim numbers, and I will not invent them. Note also that IPR2024-00275 and -00276 resolved by adverse judgment, not by FWD, so no Board claim-level holding exists in those two to quote.

Aer-In's countersuit IPRs (direction reversed). Aerin itself petitioned against Neurent's patents: IPR2025-01125 (US 12,089,889), IPR2025-01126, and IPR2025-01127 (US 12,096,974). These are Aerin as petitioner; they tell you Aerin litigates its portfolio aggressively in both directions. The '889 petition included a Sotera stipulation — Aerin agreed, conditional on institution, to drop in the Delaware litigation any ground raised or reasonably raisable in the petition.

Unverified lead — flag for follow-up

A Law360 PTAB case page titled "Aerin Medical Inc. Inter Partes Review" shows filing date 2025-06-24 and a Discretionary Denial dated 2025-11-21, case type IPR. The page does not disclose the patent number or petitioner on the indexed portion. I could not confirm which Aerin patent was targeted. If it names the '296 patent, then a proceeding does exist and this analysis changes. Given the 2025 surge in discretionary denials (see below), a June 2025 filing denied in November 2025 is a highly plausible profile for a challenge to an Aerin patent. Source: https://www.law360.com/ptab_cases/685ae592827f0995016ca4ba. Verify before relying on the "zero proceedings" conclusion in any filing. I am not assigning this a proceeding number because none was disclosed.

Strategic summary

Claim status on '296. UNTESTED — all claims. Because there are no proceedings, there is no claim that can responsibly be described as canceled, sustained, or narrowed as to this patent. Any statement that "claims 1–5 of the '296 patent are dead" would be false. Conversely, the '296 patent has not benefited from a PTAB win and remains fully exposed to a first-challenge IPR.

Estoppel landscape. § 315(e)(2) estoppel from the Neurent IPRs attaches only to the patents Neurent actually challenged ('597, '194, '271, '318, '675, '011, '286, '077) and only to Neurent and its privies. It creates no estoppel whatsoever as to the '296 patent — not against Neurent, not against anyone else. The practical consequence for a '296 defendant: the entire prior-art universe is open, including art that Neurent used, art Neurent overlooked, and art that only exists as a system/printed-publication prior-art combination. Conversely, you get no estoppel protection from the prior campaign either — a '296 IPR would rise or fall on its own merits, with the Board free to reach a different construction of the same specification language than the panels reached in the sibling cases. That is a real risk given how often shared specs produce inconsistent constructions across panels.

Pattern signals. (1) Same petitioner, many bites: Neurent filed at least eight IPRs on 2024-01-18 against the Aerin/The Foundry portfolio, which is a serial-petition profile that today draws § 314(a)/§ 325(d) scrutiny. (2) Patent owner fights: Aerin retained Finnegan across the campaign, litigated rather than folded, and has now appealed at least one adverse FWD (IPR2024-00278, notice filed 2025-09-11). (3) No defensive aggregator: Unified Patents does not appear anywhere in this chain — this is a straight competitor-vs-competitor fight (Neurent Medical Ltd. is an Irish neuromodulation company), which means the prior art and expert record are the byproduct of a commercial rivalry, not a crowd-sourced invalidity shop. (4) Aerin is actively thickening the family — new continuations issued in 2025 (e.g., US 12,364,532; US 12,357,378; US 12,369,963; US 12,369,973) and it is asserting fresh patents like the '889 and '974 against Neurent. A defendant should assume the '296 patent may be a placeholder while newer continuations carry the assertion burden.

Procedural environment as of today (2026-09-29). This matters to whether an IPR is even worth filing on '296. Reporting through 2025 documents a sharp contraction in institution: discretionary denials reached a reported all-time high of 607 in 2025, institution decisions were centralized in the Director with summary-notice denials, and an October 2025 proposed rule package would mandate denial where a parallel court will resolve validity first, where a claim has previously been upheld, or absent a Sotera stipulation in parallel litigation. Sources: Unified Patents "2025 in Review" (https://thenaplesroundtable.org/wp-content/uploads/formidable/29/2025-in-Review-Unified-Patents.pdf) and SmithLaw, "Navigating the Brave New World of PTAB Discretionary Denials" (https://www.smithlaw.com/printpilot-news-navigating-the-brave-new-world-of-ptab-discretionary-denials.pdf). I have not verified whether the October 2025 proposal was finalized — confirm current rule status before planning around it.

Recommended next steps

1. Verify the zero count at the source, with the '296 patent number in hand. Pull the complete file history and any AIA review certificate for US 9,687,296 at PTAB E2E (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/) and cross-check against the Law360 lead above. If a 2025-06-24 petition exists and was denied on 2025-11-21, the denial is worth reading in its entirety — a discretionary denial is not a merits win and does not give the patent owner any issue-preclusive benefit.

2. Calendar the § 315(b) bar immediately. If your client has been served with a complaint asserting the '296 patent, the one-year IPR window runs from service. No IPR on '296 means no petitioner has ever started that clock.

3. Do not rely on sibling FWDs for claim construction. Because there is no estoppel and no binding outcome on '296, treat the constructions and invalidity theories from IPR2024-00277/278 as persuasive drafting input, not as preclusion. Cite them to the Board as the same specification being construed, and be ready for a panel to construe differently.

4. If the '296 patent is being asserted, move fast on a Sotera stipulation. Given the reported 2025–2026 discretionary-denial posture, an IPR petition on '296 without a Sotera stipulation (as Aerin itself used in IPR2025-01125) is at meaningful risk of discretionary denial regardless of merits.

5. Track the appeals. The IPR2024-00278 Patent Owner Notice of Appeal (filed 2025-09-11) should be docketed at the Federal Circuit. Confirm the docket number and watch the disposition — if the Federal Circuit reverses or remands on the shared specification's claim construction, that outcome would inform (without controlling) any future '296 challenge. I did not verify the CAFC docket number and have deliberately not supplied one.

6. Check whether '296 was even asserted in Delaware. The case was stayed on 2024-08-08 pending FWDs in IPR2024-00275 through -00282 and -00669. If '296 is not among the asserted patents, that is itself informative about how Aerin ranks this asset — and about whether the real risk to your client comes from a newer continuation instead.

I'll research the assignment record for US 9,687,296 across the sources available to me.

I hit my research-step limit before I could pull the Assignment Center record directly, so I'm going to be explicit about what I verified versus what I could not. Everything below is grounded in the Google Patents legal-events record (from the authoritative patent text supplied to me), U.S. district-court/PTAB filings, and company-funding sources. I could not retrieve reel/frame numbers or correspondent-of-record fields in this session — I flag that gap rather than fill it with a plausible-looking number.

Inventors

Pattern finding — no abandonment signal. Contrary to the "all inventors leave within 12 months" red flag in your playbook, neither inventor departed. Both are still named as assignors on the 2019-02-15 recording, ~3 years after filing, and Frazier/Wolf continue to appear as inventors on Aerin patents through at least 2022. This is a founder-inventor → operating-company profile, not a post-exit portfolio. Supporting detail: the earliest priority date (2011-06-14) is essentially contemporaneous with Aerin's 2011 founding, i.e. the company was built on these applications rather than acquiring them.

Caveat on employer: Wolf's Aerin role is documented. Frazier's is inferred from (a) his status as a named assignor to Aerin on the '296 and (b) his appearance on later Aerin-owned patents. I did not locate a primary-source employment record for Frazier dated to Aug 2016.

Original assignee

Aerin Medical, Inc. — per the Google Patents bibliographic record, both "Original Assignee" and "Current Assignee" are Aerin Medical Inc. (Mountain View, California; formerly Sunnyvale, CA, 2565 Leghorn Street).

• Ships a product embodying the claims? Yes. Aerin commercializes VivAer® (nasal airway obstruction / nasal valve collapse) and RhinAer® / RhinAer+® (chronic rhinitis), using temperature- and impedance-controlled radiofrequency stylus systems — squarely within the '296 specification's RF-electrode-to-nasal-airway-issue disclosure. Aerin announced >200,000 patients treated (Business Wire, 25-Mar-2026), a dedicated CPT code 30469 effective Jan 2023, and payer coverage expansions through 2025.
• Primary line of business: ENT / medical device — development, manufacture, and sale of in-office minimally invasive RF devices for chronic nasal conditions.
• Current status: operating. Privately held, venture-backed, not dissolved, not in bankruptcy. Total raised ≈ $172.7M–$235M; Series G of ~$32.5M closed 13-Jan-2025 (KCK MedTech, Questa Capital, OrbiMed, Ally Bridge, plus Ares Management Credit), alongside an Ares debt facility to refinance existing debt — which explains the 2024-12-20 security-interest recording discussed below. CEO: Matt Brokaw.

Assignment timeline

Important data-quality note: The Assignment Center itself did not become reachable before my step budget expired. The events below are the Google Patents legal-events record for US 9,687,296 (as fetched 2026-09-29). Reel/frame numbers and the correspondent-of-record are NOT verified and are marked as such; I am not inventing them.

• 2017-05-09 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: FRAZIER, ANDREW; WOLF, SCOTT J. (inventors)
  • Assignee: AERIN MEDICAL, INC.
  • Correspondent: not retrieved (Assignment Center pull required)
  • Context: Original inventor→company assignment, recorded ~6 weeks before the 2017-06-27 grant.

• 2019-02-15 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Assignment of Assignors' Interest
  • Assignor: WOLF, SCOTT J.; FRAZIER, ANDREW (same two inventors, reversed order)
  • Assignee: AERIN MEDICAL, INC. (same assignee)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Second inventor→same-company recording. Two recordings of the same inventor→assignee relationship is the classic signature of a confirmatory / corrective assignment (curing a missing signature or an entity-name defect), not a change of ownership. It is not a transfer to a shell. Flagging it only because duplicate inventorship assignments occasionally mask a later nunc-pro-tunc correction — worth confirming against the reel images.

• 2019-05-13 (recorded) — Reel not retrieved

  • Conveyance: Security Interest (secured-party lien, not an ownership transfer)
  • Assignor: AERIN MEDICAL INC.
  • Assignee: CRG SERVICING LLC (as collateral agent)
  • Correspondent: not retrieved
  • Context: Securitization / venture-debt collateral — CRG is a healthcare-focused credit fund. Patent collateral for a term loan; ownership stays with Aerin.

• 2024-12-20 (recorded, two entries same day) — Reel not retrieved

  • Entry A — Conveyance: Security Interest. Assignor AERIN MEDICAL INC. → Assignee ARES CAPITAL CORPORATION, as Administrative Agent and Collateral Agent. Context: refinancing lien — Ares takes the collateral package as part of the debt facility announced 13-Jan-2025.
  • Entry B — Conveyance: Release by Secured Party. Assignor CRG SERVICING LLC → Assignee AERIN MEDICAL INC. Context: discharge of the prior CRG lien, discharging the 2019 security interest.

No post-issuance ownership transfer away from Aerin Medical Inc. appears in the record. Every entry is either (a) inventors→company, (b) a duplicate inventors→company confirmation, or (c) a lender's security interest / release. The chain terminates at the operating company.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 9687296
    2011 : Priority application filed Jun 14
    2016 : Application 15/248,935 filed Aug 26
    2017 : Issued Jun 27
         : Inventors assign interest to Aerin
    2019 : Confirmatory assignment to Aerin
         : CRG records security interest
    2023 : Family asserted against Neurent
    2024 : Ares takes security interest
         : CRG security interest released

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — not present. No movement to any "IP / Holdings / Licensing" entity at any point. Assignee of record is Aerin Medical Inc. throughout (2017-05-09, 2019-02-15; security interests 2019-05-13 and 2024-12-20 do not change ownership).

2. Known asserter in the chain — not present. No assignee in this chain matches Acacia, Marathon, IV, IPNav, Wi-LAN, Conversant, Vringo, Pendrell, Innovatio, MPHJ, Lumen View, Round Rock, Document Generation Corp, or any Spangenberg entity. Aerin Medical Inc. is an operating ENT device manufacturer, not a listed high-frequency plaintiff.

3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — unclear. I could not retrieve the correspondent-of-record for any entry in this session, so I cannot assess recurrence. This is the one signal I would most want to re-run against https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html?q=[9687296](/patent/9687296) (and the reel images). Note for context: Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner is litigation counsel for Aerin/Foundry (see https://www.finnegan.com/en/work/experience/aerin-medical-inc-et-al-v-neurent-medical-inc-et-al-123-cv-00756-d-del.html) — that is a litigation role, not evidence of a recording correspondent, and I am not treating it as one.

4. Cascading transfers — not present. Zero consecutive LLC-to-LLC transfers; no chained shell conveyances; no shared-address pattern.

5. Pre-litigation transfer — not present. No assignment dated within 6 months before the July-2023 Delaware complaint. The nearest ownership-related event is the 2019-02-15 recording — 4+ years earlier. The 2024-12-20 Ares lien postdates the suit and is a refinancing, not a venue/standing arrangement.

6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — not present. No Chapter 7/11 filing by Aerin; the company instead closed a Series G and refinanced debt in Jan 2025.

7. Privateering — not present. No operating-company-to-NPE transfer. Aerin asserts its own family directly against Neurent Medical, in its own name and with The Foundry LLC as co-plaintiff — the opposite structure.

8. Defensive aggregator — not present. No RPX, AST, LOT, Unified, or OIN appearance in the chain; the patent has not been neutralized.

Verdict

Operating-company assertion.

The recorded chain begins and ends at Aerin Medical Inc.: inventor assignments on 2017-05-09 and 2019-02-15, with the only other entries being non-ownership security interests (CRG, 2019-05-13; Ares, 2024-12-20) and CRG's discharge. Aerin is a live, funded, operating medical-device manufacturer whose VivAer and RhinAer products practice the temperature-controlled RF nasal-airway treatment described in the '296 specification, and the same owner has asserted its nasal-airway patent family against a direct competitor (Neurent Medical) in Aerin Medical Inc. et al. v. Neurent Medical Inc. et al., 1:23-cv-00756-JLH (D. Del.). Contradiction flag with the prior section: the earlier litigation analysis found the '296 patent was not confirmed as an asserted patent-in-suit — only a family member cited during prosecution of Neurent's US 11,547,473. My "operating-company assertion" verdict therefore rests on the identity and product-shipping status of the owner, not on the '296 patent itself having been pleaded.

Two open verification items (I could not close them before the step limit, and I will not guess):

1. Reel/frame numbers and correspondents for all five entries — pull from https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ or https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html (query 9687296).
2. Why two inventor→Aerin recordings exist (2017-05-09 and 2019-02-15) — inspect the reel images to confirm it is a confirmatory assignment and not a nunc-pro-tunc correction tied to a dispute.

Verification link: https://assignment.uspto.gov/patent/index.html#/patent/search/result?q=9687296 (same underlying records as https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/)

I'll research the prior-art citations for US 9,687,296. Let me run several targeted searches.

Let me pull the actual citation record for the '296 patent itself.

Let me try to retrieve the Justia page for the '296 patent directly and related source records.

Prior Art Analysis — U.S. Patent No. 9,687,296

A note on scope and evidentiary limits up front (per your strict rule): I was able to confirm the patent's identity and its internally-cited references, but I was not able to retrieve a complete, verbatim copy of the printed front-page "References Cited" table for US 9,687,296 within my search budget. I hit the tool-call limit before pulling the full citation table from USPTO PatentCenter / the patent's own PDF. So this answer distinguishes clearly between (A) references I can verify as citations for '296, and (B) items I found only in fragments and cannot confirm belong to '296. I am not auto-correcting or substituting any patent number, and I am flagging every date I have not independently verified.

1. Patent identification (confirmed)

Sources: the authoritative full text you provided (Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/US9687296/en), and https://wiki.golden.com/wiki/US_Patent_9687296_Devices_to_treat_nasal_airways-5ZZJJVR (confirms abstract and bibliographic data).

§ 102 critical date: Because '296 is a continuation carrying the 2011-06-14 priority, the presumptive pre-AIA/AIA critical date for prior art is June 14, 2011 (subject to any priority challenge). Every reference below predates it.

The claimed subject matter I am testing against (the verbatim claim set was not in the text you supplied; this is drawn from the abstract and specification): an elongate shaft; a bipolar radiofrequency delivery member extending from the shaft and sized to be inserted into a nose; a handle at the opposite end with a housing holding a power source; and a tissue contact surface bearing two rows of protruding electrodes, the device configured to deliver RF from one row of electrodes to the other row.

2. References cited in the '296 specification itself (verified from the authoritative full text)

These are the patent citations that appear in the "Description of Related Art" of US 9,687,296. They are the citations I can affirmatively attribute to '296.

Bottom line for Group A: These are the only patent citations I can verify as belonging to US 9,687,296 with confidence. None of them, alone, anticipates the '296 claims. They are background/related-art citations that the specification affirmatively distinguishes ("Such devices can be uncomfortable, unsightly…"), and they lack the core claimed combination — a bipolar RF delivery member with two rows of protruding electrodes on a tissue contact surface, sized for insertion into the nose, delivering RF row-to-row.

3. Front-page citations — fragmentary, attribution to '296 NOT confirmed

A search surfaced a "(12) United States Patent Wolf et al. / (54) METHODS AND DEVICES TO TREAT NASAL AIRWAYS" front page (from a PTAB petition record, ptacts.uspto.gov petition 1558031) whose "(56) References Cited" begins:

• 4,887,605 A — 12/1989 — Angelsen et al.
• 5,348,008 A — 9/1994 — Bornn et al.
• FOREIGN: CN 101325919 — 12/2008; WO 199907299 — 2/1999

Source: https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/1558031/download-documents

I cannot confirm from the retrieved text that this front page is '296 itself rather than a sibling in the Wolf/Aerin family (the title "Methods and devices to treat nasal airways" matches family members such as US 9,179,964 / 10,398,489 rather than the '296 title "Devices to treat nasal airways"; the '296 "prior art keyword" banner and title suggest a distinct document). I am therefore not attributing 5,348,008 (Bornn), CN 101325919, or WO 199907299 to '296, and I am not characterizing 5,348,008's subject matter, because I could not verify it and will not fabricate a description.

4. Direct answer to your § 102 question

No patent citation associated with US 9,687,296 anticipates any claim under 35 U.S.C. § 102 on this record. Specifically:

• The nasal-dilator citations (A1–A4: Johnson '499, Lockwood '495, Brown '523, Jordan '781) disclose only passive, non-energy nasal dilators. They cannot anticipate claims that require an RF delivery member, electrodes, or a power source — and '296 cites them precisely to distinguish them.
• The endoscopic/ablation citations (A5–A9: '310, '013, '605, '235, '550) disclose energy delivery to tissue and, for '235 and '550, RF/cartilage shape change — but are not nasal-valve devices and do not disclose the claimed bipolar RF delivery member sized for nasal insertion with two rows of protruding electrodes on a tissue contact surface that deliver RF from one row to the other. § 102 requires every limitation in a single reference; that single reference is absent.
• The cryo citations (A10–A11: '181, '235) are modality-specific and, at most, § 103 fodder for the cryotherapy-dependent claims.

The more realistic § 102/§ 103 pressure on '296 comes not from these citations but from (a) the applicant's own earlier family members (e.g., US 8,936,594; 8,986,301; 9,179,964; 9,179,967; 9,433,463), which are § 102(a)(2)/§ 102(b) art as to subject matter not entitled to the 2011 priority and are the basis for the terminal disclaimers in the family, and (b) prior art raised in the Neurent/Aerin disputes. Note, however, that the '296 patent's own claim-1 configuration (two rows of bipolar protruding electrodes on a deformable tissue-contact surface) appears to be what distinguishes the '296 grant from its sibling methods patents — I could not verify this against the sibling claim sets within my search budget.

5. What I did not verify (and what you should pull)

To give you the exhaustive citation list you asked for, the authoritative sources are:

1. The '296 patent's own PDF front page (56) References Cited — https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/.../US9687296.pdf (or via https://patents.google.com/patent/US9687296/en → "Download PDF"). This is the only place the complete examiner-cited + applicant-cited table is printed.
2. USPTO PatentCenter for application 15/248,935 → "References Cited" / PTO-892 and the IDS (SB/08) filings.
3. Global Dossier / Espacenet for the counterpart family (family 46321506) search reports, which list the X/Y-categorized art for the same disclosure.

Caveat on dates: For references A1–A6 and A8–A11 I have not independently confirmed issue dates in this pass; the dates I could corroborate from retrieved sources are only A7 (4,887,605 – 12/1989) and A9 (7,416,550 – 2008-08-26). Treat the others as unverified until pulled from the front page. This does not change the § 102 conclusion, because all of them comfortably predate the 2011-06-14 priority date.

Cross-check against the earlier-litigation section (no contradiction found)

The prior litigation analysis concluded that '296 was not asserted in Aerin v. Neurent (1:23-cv-00756-JLH) and that no IPR was filed against '296. Nothing in this prior-art pass contradicts that: the art cited in '296 is old background art (1989–2008), which is consistent with '296 having been cited in Neurent's IDS as family art rather than being a patent under substantive attack. The two sections are consistent.

I'll start by pulling the prior-art record associated with US 9,687,296 so the § 103 analysis is grounded in the actual references of record rather than my memory.

I have family/prior-art context. Now I need the actual claim text of the '296 patent and its front-page list of references. Let me pull those directly.

Let me pull the '296 claim set and the front-page "References Cited" list specifically.

Bottom line up front

On the record I can verify, the '296 patent looks vulnerable to a § 103 challenge, because (a) its own specification recites most of the inventive story as known art, and (b) the structural heart of the claims — a tissue-contacting device with a row-to-row bipolar RF electrode array — was squarely addressed by art already applied against sibling patents in the same family at the PTAB (Edwards‑'535 + Stern). The main defenses are priority-date scope and secondary considerations.

Important caveat on claim text. I could not pull the verbatim claim set of US 9,687,296 in this session (search budget was exhausted on other queries). Everything below is keyed to the claim features stated in the patent's own abstract and specification, which are consistent with each other and with the family's later claim language. I have flagged each inference. Do not treat this as a verbatim claim chart.

1. What I am treating as "the Prior Art section"

The Google Patents page (https://patents.google.com/patent/US9687296/en) carries:

• Prior art keywords: "nasal, tissue, treatment, energy, treatment element" — i.e., the examiner's search concepts.
• Prior art date: 2011‑06‑14 (family priority).
• A "Family has litigation" banner (Darts‑IP family 46321506).

Because the page's citation tables were not fully retrievable, I built the reference set from two sources that are in the record: (i) the references discussed and cited inside the '296 specification itself (these are admissions that they are prior art), and (ii) the front‑page "References Cited" list visible on the sibling patent US 11,457,971 (same inventors/spec, https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/65/c8/61/4907f67a2ea2ee/US11457971.pdf).

Tier 1 — Art cited/discussed in the '296 specification

Tier 2 — Art already applied against the same family at the PTAB

• Edwards‑'535 and Stern (Ex. 1033) were the primary obviousness combination against the "two rows of bipolar electrode pairs" limitation in IPR2024‑00277 (Aerin's US 11,241,271). Per Petitioner's Reply (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1555012](/patent/1555012)/), Stern discloses "various physical arrangements of electrodes on the surface of a bladder" plus "circuitry for selective delivery of bipolar RF energy to chosen pairs within the array," with Fig. 4a showing one row of four electrodes facing a row of three, and Fig. 15 showing selectable monopolar/bipolar operation. (I did not independently verify the full patent numbers behind the "Edwards‑'535" and "Stern" labels — do not cite them as numbers without pulling the exhibit.)
• Makower and Imran were relied on for electrodes "extend[ing] laterally from the main catheter body" (https://ptacts.uspto.gov/ptacts/public-informations/petitions/[1555015](/patent/1555015)/).

Tier 3 — Art that is not available against '296

• Townley (US 2016/0331459) — published 2016‑11‑17, after '296's 2016‑08‑26 filing and after its 2011/2013 priority. Not prior art to '296.
• Wolf‑003 (US 2015/0202003) and Wolf‑290 (US 2019/0282290) — Aerin's own applications, same family/common ownership. Not available.

This distinction matters: the art that knocked out Neurent's '973 patent is not available against '296.

2. Claim 1, decomposed

From the abstract (https://wiki.golden.com/wiki/US_Patent_9687296_Devices_to_treat_nasal_airways-5ZZJJVR) and the specification's device summary:

Dependents (per the spec, and mirrored by the family's later claim sets): convex contact surface creating a concavity; flat contact surface; battery in the handle; temperature/impedance sensor; thermocouple positioned between the two rows; tissue cooling member at/near the delivery member. (Family corroboration: https://patents.justia.com/patent/[11241271](/patent/11241271) and https://patents.justia.com/patent/[10398489](/patent/10398489).)

POSITA: a biomedical or mechanical engineer (BS + ~2–5 yrs) in ENT/electrosurgical device development, or an ENT surgeon collaborating with such an engineer; familiar with bipolar RF lesion formation, cartilage/soft-tissue thermal remodeling, and intranasal anatomy.

3. Grounds of obviousness

Ground 1 — The purpose and the therapeutic mechanism (teaches [1P], [1E])

US 6,589,235 + US 7,416,550, optionally with US 6,551,310 / US 6,451,013.

• '235 teaches that cartilage can be reshaped by radiofrequency heating — the exact physical mechanism '296 relies on.
• '550 teaches controlling and monitoring shape change in tissues such as cartilage, i.e., the closed-loop piece.
• '310 and '013 teach intraluminal devices that ablate/heat tissue at a controlled depth from inside a body lumen, which supplies [1C] (in-body access) and the depth-control concept.

Motivation: the '296 specification itself frames the problem — external strips and temporary internal splints are "uncomfortable, unsightly, … require the patient to remove and replace the device on a periodic basis," and "cause skin irritation." That is an express design incentive to replace a temporary mechanical dilator with a durable, minimally-invasive thermal treatment. Applying a known cartilage-reshaping technique to the known constricting structure (the nasal valve / upper lateral cartilage) is the paradigmatic "use of a known technique to improve a similar device in the same way" (KSR rational).

Ground 2 — The structural core: two rows of electrodes, row-to-row bipolar ([1B], [1F], [1G])

Edwards‑'535 + Stern.

• Stern supplies arrays of tissue-contacting electrodes on a delivery surface with selectable bipolar pairs, and — per Fig. 4a — at least a two-row arrangement.
• Edwards‑'535 supplies a bipolar electrosurgical device with tissue-deforming/contacting electrodes.
• The '296 specification additionally supplies an admission that depth of treatment is controlled by electrode spacing: "the depth of treatment may be controlled by controlling a spacing between electrodes." That is a stated known design principle, and it is the classic reason to arrange electrodes in two rows rather than randomly.

Motivation: a POSITA seeking a reproducible, depth-limited lesion in thin intranasal tissue has a finite set of known options (monopolar + return pad, bipolar pairs, arrays); bipolar row-to-row confines current between the rows and avoids current through the skin layer — a benefit the '296 spec itself claims for its internal-bipolar embodiment ("advantageously minimize current flow through the skin layer"). Predictable result, finite alternatives → obvious.

Ground 3 — "Inserted into a nose" + handheld/battery ([1C], [1H])

Handheld, battery-powered electrosurgical pencils and intranasal devices (Brown '523; Jordan '781; the '310/'013 intraluminal devices) render an elongate shaft + handle + on-board power source an obvious mechanical packaging choice. The '296 spec admits the handle/housing/power-supply architecture as routine ("a power supply may be integrated within the handle section… a battery or other electrical energy storage").

Ground 4 — Deformation while energizing ([1D])

The spec admits molds, balloons, spreaders, clamps and counter-traction elements as known ("mold", "tissue shaper", "re-shaping element" are defined generically). A protruding-electrode contact surface necessarily indents tissue when pressed against it; combining a known tissue-shaping element with a known electrode array is a mere arrangement of old elements producing no more than predictable results.

4. Dependent-claim analysis

5. Why a POSITA would have combined (KSR rationales)

1. Express problem statement in the reference itself. The '296 spec enumerates the shortcomings of the prior art and thereby supplies the motivation.
2. Predictable use of a known technique. RF cartilage reshaping ('235) + shape-change monitoring ('550) applied to the nasal valve.
3. Finite, identified, predictable solutions. Electrode geometry (monopolar plate, bipolar pair, two-row array) and energy modality (RF/cryo/laser/ultrasound) are an enumerated short list.
4. Design incentive / market pressure. The spec identifies the clinical need for a treatment that doesn't require nightly re-application.
5. Teaching away: none identified in the record — no reference disparages intranasal RF remodeling of the nasal valve.

6. Where the patent pushes back (and it's not trivial)

• No IPR was ever filed against '296. Neurent attacked the '271, '318, '675, '011, '286, '077 patents but not '296 (consistent with the Litigation summary — '296 appears in that case only as a cited family member, ¶42 of the FAC). That is at least weak evidence of perceived claim strength.
• Secondary considerations. RhinAer®/Vivaer™ has randomized controlled trial data (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/instance/[9437830](/patent/9437830)/) with NOSE-scale and durability endpoints — potential nexus evidence of commercial success and unexpected efficacy.
• Copying / willfulness allegations. Aerin's complaint alleges Neurent tracked "patents and applications related to the '597, '194, '271, and '318 patents" during its own prosecution — industry recognition and alleged copying are non-obviousness factors.
• Priority-date scope is the real battleground. '296's chain runs through a CIP (14/319,087, filed 2014‑06‑30) and the Google family table shows an "external-priority" link to 14/026,922 (US 8,986,301, filed 2013‑09‑13). If any claim limitation is only entitled to 2014 or 2016, additional art becomes available — though notably Townley, Wolf‑003 and Wolf‑290 remain unavailable regardless.

Contradiction flagged: the previously generated Litigation summary records the '296 priority date as 2011‑06‑14 and anticipated expiration 2032‑06‑13, while the same Google page lists a 2013‑09‑13 "external-priority" claim to 14/026,922. These are reconcilable only if the 2013 filing is itself a continuation of the 2011 application; I have not verified that link and would not rely on 2011 without checking the '296 front page (63) cross-references.

7. What I could not verify — do these before relying on any of the above

1. Verbatim claims 1–20 of US 9,687,296 (Google Patents / USPTO PatentCenter). My element list is reconstructed.
2. Full identifying numbers for Edwards‑'535, Stern, Makower and Imran from the IPR exhibits (Ex. 1033, etc.) — I described what the PTAB record says they teach, not their numbers.
3. The (56) references on the '296 front page itself, including any art not cited in the specification text.
4. The actual priority chain (front-page (63) data).
5. Whether any of '235 / '550 / '310 / '013 were applied in a rejection or merely listed during '296's prosecution — that affects the "non-cumulative" Advanced Bionics argument in any future IPR.

This is a technical obviousness assessment, not a legal validity opinion.