Short Summary
Aerin Medical seeks IPR cancellation of Neurent's U.S. Patent 12,089,889 covering a nasal neuromodulation device, asserting obviousness over four prior‑art references and lack of written description.
Detailed Summary
In Petition IPR2025-01125, Aerin Medical Inc. challenges all twenty claims of Neurent Medical Ltd.’s ’889 patent, which claims a multi‑electrode end effector for treating rhinitis, congestion, and rhinorrhea via radiofrequency neuromodulation. The petitioner relies on four prior‑art references—Townley, Wolf‑003, Wolf‑290, and Angeles—to argue that each claim is either anticipated or rendered obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103, and also raises written‑description and indefiniteness concerns under § 112. The petition requests that the PTAB institute the IPR and ultimately cancel the entire claim set.
Practitioner Note
This case demonstrates the evidentiary and procedural standards applied in patent matters before local courts. Understanding the court's reasoning in Aerin Medical Inc. vs Neurent Medical Ltd. et al. is valuable context for structuring arguments or assessing risk in similar proceedings.
Related Cases
CISCO SYSTEMS, INC.vsUMBRA TECHNOLOGIES LTD.
Umbra Technologies requests a Director Review of the PTAB’s decision that invalidated its 10,630,505 patent covering end‑to‑end network tunnels. The patent owner contends the Board’s new claim construction and disregard of expert testimony were erroneous, seeking reversal and reinstatement of claims 1‑20.
Meta Platforms, Inc.vsMullen Industries LLC
Meta Platforms successfully secured the institution of IPRs against Mullen Industries LLC's patents related to Location-based Augmented Reality Systems. The Board found a reasonable likelihood of unpatentability on obviousness for key claims, particularly regarding the scope of 'physical playfield.'
Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company LimitedvsAdvanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC
Advanced Integrated Circuit Process LLC submits an authorized response urging the Director to deny Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Company's request for Director Review of a discretionary denial to institute an IPR on patent 8,198,686. The response rebuts the petitioner’s arguments on national security, settled expectations, duplication, and examiner error.
Apple Inc.vsMessageLoud, Inc.
Apple has filed an IPR petition seeking cancellation of all 25 claims of MessageLoud’s ’728 patent, asserting that the claims are obvious over prior‑art references Boelter, Gruber and Polak. The petition requests institution of the review and cancellation of the claims.
Samsung Electronics Co., Ltd. et al.vsOptimum Imaging Technologies LLC
Samsung and Optimum Imaging Technologies settled four IPRs before trial. The parties filed joint motions to terminate, and the PTAB dismissed the petitions, treating the settlement agreements as confidential.
Dealing with a patent challenge?
Whether it's a Section 3(d) rejection, a post-grant opposition, or a FRAND dispute, Arctic's patent litigation team has handled it. Get a strategy call.
Disclaimer: This page contains an automated summary based on publicly available judicial records. The content is generated for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Always verify details against the original source judgment before relying on this information for any legal purpose. If you believe any information is inaccurate, please contact us.